Argument177 【0710G Victors互助小组】

#十指飞舞UID: 2330769

TOPIC: ARGUMENT177 - The 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."
WORDS: 372          TIME: 00:39:32          DATE: 2007-6-27 1:34:10

  In this letter, the author recommends that Oak City's Civic Club should be restricted to residents in its own city. To support this recommendation, the author claims that only residents can truly understand the business and politics of the city, and also cites Elm City's Civic  Club as an example.However,close scrutiny of the recommendation reveals that the evidence leads no support to the conclusion as it stands.

  In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that the nonresidents employed in Oak City can not truly understand the business and politics of the city since they don't pay city taxes. It is entirely possible that nonresidents may know the city better than residents because they are more objective for there is no benefit involved in it. Without ruling out the possibility, it can not convince me that only residents are restricted to local issues.

  In the second place, the fact of Elm City's Civic Club that only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's club in the last ten years leads no support to the conclusion that restricting membership to local people will not disappoint nonresidents employed in Oak city. Perhaps the total number of Elm City's Club is only a little larger than twenty-five ,that means nonresidents are the majority of the club, the possibility would undermine the recommendation. Moreover, the situation in Elm City can not simply typify that of Oak City for the two cites may have many differences, for example, Elm City is a migration city in which a greater part of people work in it are nonresidents while the population of Elm City would be mainly local people, in this case, restricting membership to the people who live in Oak City may disappoint the majority of people who actually work here and can not involve in discussing local issues which would affect nonresidents’ benefits.

  In conclusion, the recommendation is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the recommendation, the author would need to provide clearer evidence that nonresidents can not truly understand local issue and restricting membership would not disappoint nonresidents employed in the city. To better evaluate the recommendation, I would need to know the statistics and the composition of Elm City's Club in the last ten years.

puzilongUID: 2308557

  In this letter, the author recommends that Oak City's Civic Club should be restricted to residents in its own city. To support this recommendation, the author claims that only residents can truly understand the business and politics of the city, and also cites Elm City's Civic  Club as an example.However,close scrutiny of the recommendation reveals that the evidence leads no support to the conclusion as it stands.

  In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that the nonresidents employed in Oak City can not truly understand the business and politics of the city since they don't pay city taxes. It is entirely possible that nonresidents may know the city better than residents because they are more objective for there is no benefit involved in it. Without ruling out the possibility, it can not convince me that only residents are restricted to local issues.

  In the second place, the fact of Elm City's Civic Club that only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's club in the last ten years leads no support to the conclusion that restricting membership to local people will not disappoint nonresidents employed in Oak city. Perhaps the total number of Elm City's Club is only a little larger than twenty-five ,that means nonresidents are the majority of the club, the possibility would undermine the recommendation. Moreover, the situation in Elm City can not simply typify that of Oak City for the two cites may have many differences, for example, Elm City is a migration city in which a greater part of people work in it are nonresidents while the population of Elm City would be mainly local people, in this case, restricting membership to the people who live in Oak City may disappoint the majority of people who actually work here and can not involve in discussing local issues which would affect nonresidents’ benefits.

  In conclusion, the recommendation is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the recommendation, the author would need to provide clearer evidence that nonresidents can not truly understand local issue and restricting membership would not disappoint nonresidents employed in the city. To better evaluate the recommendation, I would need to know the statistics and the composition of Elm City's Club in the last ten years.



可能是大姐头比较忙的缘故,这篇A真的没什么值得称道的地方.就是揪出了两个显而易见fallacies,而且分析也不精彩.
不过还是相信大姐头的实力的.毕竟之前有看过你的文章,都很不错的.

这个letter里有一个主要矛盾: 有人(而且不少,要不然也就没必要限制了)想定居OAK CITY, 但是THE CIVIC CLUB不干. 那么,arguer
提出的第二个证据elm city,推论oak的限制政策不会让很多nonresidents失望本身就跟arguer的意图(支持限制政策)自相矛盾. 其实说穿了
我们要做的就是持反对意见(不支持这项政策,为那些不在少数的nonresidents但想reside here的人们说句公道话,只是要委婉些罢了).