[习作点评] 这道ARUMENT我没搜到题号,可能已经被ETS踢掉了(可以来看看,写得风格比较另类 by iq28) [复制链接]

speakless
UID: 2205899

荣誉版主

Rank: 9 Rank: 9 Rank: 9

声望: 89
寄托币: 1288
注册时间: 2006-4-14
精华: 0
帖子: 531

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-4-6 21:33:53 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

谢谢各位的意见,我再好好想想然后改一下:)
The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this argument, the conclusion is that building schools in Scott Woods which is in a natural undeveloped state, can still benefit community as natural parkland. However, the arguer commits several logic errors in reasoning and overlooks several possibilities, so the validity has been weakened.

First of all, the arguer fails to think over some inner reasons why people keep the land in Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. The arguer reasons that if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community. But further questions arise: why residents don’t want to establish shopping center and houses there? Whether there are some inner reasons due to the opposition? For example, perhaps five years ago, residents of Morganton found that it was unnecessary to build any shopping centers or houses any more because such buildings available had satisfied their demands. In this sense, when it comes to build a school, the same possibility should be taken into account: Are there already enough schools? If the answer is yes, it is obvious unnecessary to build another one. In another case, perhaps what the residents are afraid of is that these buildings could make a profound damage on the nature environment. If there are some endangered species of animals and plants in Scott Woods, the opposition will not be altered when the issue is building a school, because the project is still a threat to the natural state. As a result, during the reasoning why building a school is reasonable, the arguer do not think over the inner reasons contributing to the disagreement by citizens five years ago.

Next, the assumption that substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields by school lacks of evidences to prove that it is possible to satisfy needs by neighbor citizens. Firstly, the arguer fails to supply any statistics on how much area will be used to build athletic fields. If the school is not a sport one, its main purpose is for education rather than for sports, so it is more likely that the areas devoted to sports is much less that the areas used for education, such as classrooms, laboratories. Secondly, even if the lands for athletic fields are quite large, other critical questions will need to be answered: If the school cannot open to public, can children nearby still use the fields for sports? Whether the fields have enough room for both the students and the citizens around? Obvious, if residents nearby cannot easily access to this sports fields and have enough chances to use the instruments, it is far from reaching the standpoint that the school will benefit the community.

Furthermore, the arguer makes a hasty conclusion that Scott Woods would be still natural parkland even when a school has been built there. It seems that it is a problem about the definition about ‘natural parkland’. If the phrase just meant that ‘a place can be used for sports’, the conclusion would have some merits. However the meaning of the phrase is far from this. Many other possibilities, especially in environment, should be taken into account. For examples, for building the school, tons of woods will be cut off and many species of animals will be forced to leave. And then the outlooks before may be taken places by concrete and brick construction. Can this scene be still described with ‘natural’? So, absent from ruling out the possibility that nature scenes should be damaged, it is unsafe to assert that the place will not change.

In sum, with some logic errors in reasoning and lacking detailed evidences, the arguer is failed to prove that the school will benefit the community. In addition, without taking other possibilities about consequences of buiding a school on Scott Woods , it is unconvincing to reach the standpoint that the place can function as a natural land.

- -之前就不说了......教训啊...题目都看错意思了....感觉最近自己有些急..........
大家帮忙拍拍吧~

[ 本帖最后由 speakless 于 2007-4-7 08:49 编辑 ]