argument177 【mettle小组假期作业二】 by imagic80

imagic80UID: 2342633

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."
WORD:            TIME:12:00-12:41
In the argument, the arguer advocates that only the people who live in Oak City (OC) can join in Oak City's Civic Club (OCCC). To support his claim, he assumes that people who work in OC but live elsewhere can not truly understand the business and politics of the city. At the same time, he also point out that their neighboring Elm City's Civic Club (ECCC) only have twenty-five nonresidents members after carry on an open membership policy. At first glance, the arguer’s line of reasoning seems plausible, when it comes to an exhaustive examination, several fallacies will be found as follows.
First of all, the argument is based on an gratuitous assumption that nonresidents can not understand the business and politics of the city. In fact, these nonresidents might be greatly influenced by the business and politics of the city. Because they work in the city, so they must be deeply involves in the business and politics of the city. For example, perhaps many of them are businessman of the city, or perhaps they are members of the government of the city. If that is the case, how can we say these nonresident can not understand the business and politics of the city.
Secondly, the arguer also make unfair assumption that the nonresidents lay little stress on the improvement of the city. Common sense tells us, workers also concerned about their working environment. It is impossibe that they will not concern about the city plan to build a park in their surrounding, which will serve as a leisure place in the rest time between work. What is more, they also must pay more attention to the soon-to-be-publicized policies which will produce great impacts on their working situation. For example, they must be willing to involve in the discusion linked to an recent law whether the workers in OC should work five days and rest two days. Without ruling out this possibilities, the arguer can not assume that nonresident are indifferent to the improvement of the city.[time up]
Finally, the fact that only only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years does not implies that the implementation  of this restriction will not arouse disappoint. On the one hand, there are many difference between the two city, it is entirely possible that most of the worker who work in Elm City also live in the city while the most of worker who work in OC live in elsewhere. So, perhaps there are only twenty-five nonresidents and all of them have joined the ECCC. If so, this information lends little to support the assumption that nonresidents will not be disappointed of depriving of the right of becoming the member of OCCC.
All in all, before the restriction being applied into practice, a cautious and careful survey should be conduct to make it clear that whether nonresidents in OC shows no interest in the city’s  business and politics. And meanwhile, to make sure whether they will be disappointed without the right to joining in OCCC.


















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."
WORD:            TIME:12:00-12:41
In the argument, the arguer advocates that only the people who live in Oak City (OC) can join in Oak City's Civic Club (OCCC). To support his claim, he assumes that people who work in OC but live elsewhere can not truly understand the business and politics of the city. At the same time, he also point out that their neighboring Elm City's Civic Club (ECCC) only have twenty-five nonresidents members after carry on an open membership policy. At first glance, the arguer’s line of reasoning seems plausible, when it comes to an exhaustive examination, several fallacies will be found as follows.
First of all, the argument is based on an gratuitous assumption that nonresidents can not understand the business and politics of the city. In fact, these nonresidents might be greatly influenced by the business and politics of the city. Because they work in the city, so they must be deeply involves in the business and politics of the city. For example, perhaps many of them are businessman of the city, or perhaps they are members of the government of the city. If that is the case, how can we say these nonresident can not understand the business and politics of the city.
Secondly, the arguer also make unfair assumption that the nonresidents lay little stress on the improvement of the city. Common sense tells us, workers also concerned about their working environment. It is impossibe that they will not concern about the city plan to build a park in their surrounding, which will serve as a leisure place in the rest time between work. What is more, they also must pay more attention to the soon-to-be-publicized policies which will produce great impacts on their working situation. For example, they must be willing to involve in the discusion linked to an recent law whether the workers in OC should work five days and rest two days. Without ruling out this possibilities, the arguer can not assume that nonresident are indifferent to the improvement of the city.[time up]
Finally, the fact that only only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years does not implies that the implementation  of this restriction will not arouse disappoint. On the one hand, there are many difference between the two city, it is entirely possible that most of the worker who work in Elm City also live in the city while the most of worker who work in OC live in elsewhere. So, perhaps there are only twenty-five nonresidents and all of them have joined the ECCC. If so, this information lends little to support the assumption that nonresidents will not be disappointed of depriving of the right of becoming the member of OCCC.
All in all, before the restriction being applied into practice, a cautious and careful survey should be conduct to make it clear that whether nonresidents in OC shows no interest in the city’s  business and politics. And meanwhile, to make sure whether they will be disappointed without the right to joining in OCCC.

werecatUID: 2289296

In the argument, the arguer advocates that only the people who live in Oak City (OC) can join in Oak City's Civic Club (OCCC). To support his claim, he assumes that people who work in OC but live elsewhere can not truly understand the business and politics of the city. At the same time, he also point out that their neighboring Elm City's Civic Club (ECCC) only have twenty-five nonresidents members after carry on an open membership policy. At first glance, the arguer’s line of reasoning seems plausible, when it comes to an exhaustive[好词] examination, several fallacies will be found as follows.
First of all, the argument is based on an gratuitous assumption that nonresidents can not understand the business and politics of the city. In fact, these nonresidents might be greatly influenced by the business and politics of the city. Because they work in the city, so they must be deeply involves in the business and politics of the city. For example, perhaps many of them are businessman of the city, or perhaps they are members of the government of the city. If that is the case, how can we say these nonresident can not understand the business and politics of the city.[语序有些奇怪，how can we assume that these nonresidents can not…?]
Secondly, the arguer also make unfair assumption that the nonresidents lay little stress on the improvement of the city. Common sense tells us, workers also concerned about their working environment. It is impossible[impossible] that they will not concern about the city plan to build a park in their surrounding, which will serve as a leisure place in the rest time between work[between work？不如去掉]. What is more, they also must pay more attention to the soon-to-be-publicized policies which will produce great impacts on their working situation. For example, they must be willing to involve in the discusion[discussion] linked to an recent law whether the workers in OC should work five days and rest two days. Without ruling out this[these] possibilities, the arguer can not assume that nonresident are indifferent to the improvement of the city.[time up]
Finally, the fact that only only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years does not implies that the implementation  of this restriction will not arouse disappoint. On the one hand, there are many difference between the two city, it is entirely possible that most of the worker who work in Elm City also live in the city while the most of worker who work in OC live in elsewhere[live elsewhere]. So, perhaps there are only twenty-five nonresidents and all of them have joined the ECCC. If so, this information lends little to support the assumption that nonresidents will not be disappointed of depriving of the right of becoming the member of OCCC.
All in all, before the restriction being applied into practice, a cautious and careful survey should be conduct to make it clear that whether nonresidents in OC shows no interest in the city’s  business and politics. And meanwhile, to make sure whether they will be disappointed[+ or not] without the right to joining in OCCC.

[lz写错题目了吧?
argue的结构和构思都差不多吧，不过lz似乎总是写不完
新东方老师教导道：argue先写开头，再各段topic sentence，再结尾，最后再补完各段内容，这样时间到了至少框架都在，否则没有结尾视为未完成，丢分很多的]