Argument177 [Victors小组]第五次作业 by solartorch

solartorchUID: 2244205

177The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.

"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club—a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues—should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."


三点，五百多字
While it seems true that the facts in the above argument contribute to the conclusion that Membership in Oak City’s Civic Club (OCCC) should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City, the evidences and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny—in 3 respects.

First of all, the author unwarrantedly assumes that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. No proper evidence is provided in the argument to support this premise. On the contrary, we are reasonable to believe that experiences in different cities, which are widely pertaining to those who work in Oak City but live in another city, may bring them mature and diverse understandings on the business and politics of Oak City. These understandings to most extent are, not saying more, but at least as valuable as those from the local residents. Based on this point, eliminating the participation of nonresidents in Oak City would have been an unwise proposal.

Secondly, absent evidence to verifying the assumption that only residents who pay city taxes can understand how the money could best be used, the author’s claim based on the taxes is merely gratuitous. On the other hand, let alone the innovated opinions inspired by acquaintance of different cities, nonresidents who work in the city are nevertheless aware of the city’s industrial and economic area. Moreover, without the investigation on the actual hours the residences of Oak City live in it, the author unfairly correlate the fact of paying taxes with knowing how to spend it. Perhaps some of the residents live in the city but work elsewhere just in an analogue situation as the nonresidents of Oak City. Although residents pay the taxes, it is entirely possible that nonresidents who contribute their intellect and sinew in the city’s construction and service would have understood better on how the money could best be used to advance the city.

Finally, the author’s allegation that restricting membership is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City relies on a hasty assumption that OCCC would be similar to the neighboring Elm City’s Civic Club (ECCC) which had an open membership policy but receive little response. Perhaps Elm City is a traditional secluded city with little organizational fluidity and personnel diversity. Twenty-five is not a small number compared to its total nonresidents in the last ten years. The conjecture threw out by the author that joining ECCC is not popularly demanded seems vulnerable. Or perhaps due to discrepant industrial area these two cities mainly based on separately, the age brackets or educational levels of the two cities’ nonresidents are deviating. The nonresidents in Oak City may probably be more interested in City’s Civic Club while Elm City’s nonresidents are showing their nonchalance. If so, then restricting membership is likely to disappoint many of the nonresident employed in Oak City. In other words, without evidence that Elm City and Oak City would be equally in the framework and structure of nonresidents, I cannot accept the author’s conclusion that restricting membership won’t disappoint the nonresidents employed in Oak City.

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions and evidences. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information as well as some necessary investigations.

[ 本帖最后由 solartorch 于 2007-5-16 17:01 编辑 ]

H-KevinUID: 2182070

While it seems true that the facts in the above argument contribute to the conclusion that Membership in Oak City’s Civic Club (OCCC) should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City, the evidences and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny—in 3 respects.

First of all, the author unwarrantedly assumes that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. No proper evidence is provided in the argument to support this premise. On the contrary, we are reasonable to believe that experiences in different cities, which are widely pertaining to those who work in Oak City but live in another city, may bring them mature and diverse understandings on the business and politics of Oak City. These understandings to most extent are, not saying more, but at least as valuable as those from the local residents. Based on this point, eliminating the participation of nonresidents in Oak City would have been an unwise proposal.

Secondly, absent evidence to verifying the assumption that only residents who pay city taxes can understand how the money could best be used, the author’s claim based on the taxes is merely gratuitous. On the other hand, let alone the innovated opinions inspired by acquaintance of different cities, nonresidents who work in the city are nevertheless aware of the city’s industrial and economic area. Moreover, without the investigation on the actual hours the residences of Oak City live in it, the author unfairly correlate the fact of paying taxes with knowing how to spend it（后面的例子没有解释清楚前面的话啊）. Perhaps some of the residents live in the city but work elsewhere just in an analogue situation as the nonresidents of Oak City. Although residents pay the taxes, it is entirely possible that nonresidents who contribute their intellect and sinew in the city’s construction and service would have understood better on how the money could best be used to advance the city.

Finally, the author’s allegation that restricting membership is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City relies on a hasty assumption that OCCC would be similar to the neighboring Elm City’s Civic Club (ECCC) which had an open membership policy but receive little response. Perhaps Elm City is a traditional secluded city with little organizational fluidity and personnel diversity. Twenty-five is not a small number compared to its total nonresidents in the last ten years（为什么不是小数目？要是总共会员人数有30万呢） The conjecture threw out by the author that joining ECCC is not popularly demanded seems vulnerable. Or perhaps due to discrepant industrial area these two cities mainly based on separately, the age brackets or educational levels of the two cities’ nonresidents are deviating. The nonresidents in Oak City may probably be more interested in City’s Civic Club while Elm City’s nonresidents are showing their nonchalance. If so, then restricting membership is likely to disappoint many of the nonresident employed in Oak City. In other words, without evidence that Elm City and Oak City would be equally in the framework and structure of nonresidents, I cannot accept the author’s conclusion that restricting membership won’t disappoint the nonresidents employed in Oak City.

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions and evidences. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information as well as some necessary investigations.

条例清楚，词汇多样

H-KevinUID: 2182070

While it seems true that the facts in the above argument contribute to the conclusion that Membership in Oak City’s Civic Club (OCCC) should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City, the evidences and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny—in 3 respects.

First of all, the author unwarrantedly assumes that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. No proper evidence is provided in the argument to support this premise. On the contrary, we are reasonable to believe that experiences in different cities, which are widely pertaining to those who work in Oak City but live in another city, may bring them mature and diverse understandings on the business and politics of Oak City. These understandings to most extent are, not saying more, but at least as valuable as those from the local residents. Based on this point, eliminating the participation of nonresidents in Oak City would have been an unwise proposal.

Secondly, absent evidence to verifying the assumption that only residents who pay city taxes can understand how the money could best be used, the author’s claim based on the taxes is merely gratuitous. On the other hand, let alone the innovated opinions inspired by acquaintance of different cities, nonresidents who work in the city are nevertheless aware of the city’s industrial and economic area. Moreover, without the investigation on the actual hours the residences of Oak City live in it, the author unfairly correlate the fact of paying taxes with knowing how to spend it（后面的例子没有解释清楚前面的话啊）. Perhaps some of the residents live in the city but work elsewhere just in an analogue situation as the nonresidents of Oak City. Although residents pay the taxes, it is entirely possible that nonresidents who contribute their intellect and sinew in the city’s construction and service would have understood better on how the money could best be used to advance the city.

Finally, the author’s allegation that restricting membership is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City relies on a hasty assumption that OCCC would be similar to the neighboring Elm City’s Civic Club (ECCC) which had an open membership policy but receive little response. Perhaps Elm City is a traditional secluded city with little organizational fluidity and personnel diversity. Twenty-five is not a small number compared to its total nonresidents in the last ten years（为什么不是小数目？要是总共会员人数有30万呢） The conjecture threw out by the author that joining ECCC is not popularly demanded seems vulnerable. Or perhaps due to discrepant industrial area these two cities mainly based on separately, the age brackets or educational levels of the two cities’ nonresidents are deviating. The nonresidents in Oak City may probably be more interested in City’s Civic Club while Elm City’s nonresidents are showing their nonchalance. If so, then restricting membership is likely to disappoint many of the nonresident employed in Oak City. In other words, without evidence that Elm City and Oak City would be equally in the framework and structure of nonresidents, I cannot accept the author’s conclusion that restricting membership won’t disappoint the nonresidents employed in Oak City.

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions and evidences. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information as well as some necessary investigations.

条例清楚，词汇多样