argument177[0710G +U Aug小组]--xiefen0223--第1次作业

xiefen0223UID: 2301911

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the membership in Oak City’s Civic Club should be restricted to the people who live in Oak City, while keep the nonresidents who work in the city from joining the club and discussing local issues. To support his recommendation, the arguer gives the reason that only the residents pay city taxes and so only they understand how the money could best be used. Besides that, the arguer take the neighboring Elm City’s Civic Club’s data to show that nonresidents employed in Oak City will not care about restricting membership. A careful examination of this argument will reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First, the argument is based on an assumption that the nonresidents who work in Oak City can not understand the business and politic of the city. Unless the arguer provides some research data to prove the information, one can not judge that the nonresidents do not understand the city. Since the people are working in the city, they will be involved in the society and have their understanding of the politic and business of the city, maybe the understanding is not as well as the residents, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not means that there will be no good suggestions on the local issues.

Second, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between pay city taxes and understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. Even the residents are the only taxes-payers; it does not follow that they know how to spend the money. As we know, both the young people and the old pay the taxes, maybe the young are likely to pay the money for the sport facility while old people would like to spend it on the hospitals. Do they really understand which is better for the city? Probably not, people are just atoning to spend money on improving the life besides him, which may be not the best choice for the city.

Last but not least, when the arguer tries to make the point that the nonresident will not be disappointed by restricting membership, he provides the information in the neighing Elm City’s Civic Club, which is incomplete and selective to prove his point. Twenty-five nonresidents seems to be a small portion, but maybe it is because there are rare people working in Elm City and at the same time living outside of the city, or the reason might be that the club is not popular so that no one want to join it, even the local people. So in this case, the data refer to carrying on an open policy in the Elm City’s Civic can not be taken seriously by the Oak City.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the recommendation, the arguer would have to provide evidence that the residents understand how the money can be best used to improve the city, and moreover, the arguer must presents more evidences to prove the nonresidents doesn’t understand the policy and the business of the city and they do not care about being involved in the club.

我用了一个小时去凑字数。。：（

571633UID: 2333480

发现就是几个单复数错误，其他我没有看出什么问题。

ldsunUID: 2329026

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the membership in Oak City’s Civic Club should be restricted to the people who live in Oak City, while keep the nonresidents who work in the city from joining the club and discussing local issues. To support his recommendation, the arguer gives the reason that only the residents pay city taxes and so [加一个that是不是更好些?]only they understand how the money could best be[be best?] used. Besides that, the arguer take[takes] the neighboring Elm City’s Civic Club’s data to show that nonresidents employed in Oak City will not care about restricting membership[是不是restricted membership?]. A careful examination of this argument will reveal how groundless the conclusion is.[ 这样的开头，我觉得thesis(最后一句)不够突出，可能会被列为introductary matrial吧,应该是指出怎样的错误会好些吧，after all大家都是这样写的，不过有例子指出这样是thesis是不够有力的。]

First, the argument is based on an assumption that the nonresidents who work in Oak City can not understand the business and politic of the city. Unless the arguer provides some research data to prove the information, one can not judge that the nonresidents do not understand the city. Since the people are working in the city, they will be involved in the society and have their understanding of the politic and business of the city, maybe the understanding is not as well as the residents, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not means that there will be no good suggestions on the local issues.[只用这样一长句来展开自己的论证，而且，后面，which is后面，又加入了别的意群，这样不好吧，呵呵，似乎自己的论证就不够清楚有力了。]


Second, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between pay[paying?] city taxes and understand how the money could best be[可能我没有见到过这样用best的吧，不懂这处见谅了] used to improve the city. [这一句很好啊]Even the residents are the only taxes-payers[tax-payer?]; it does not follow that they know how to spend the money. As we know, both the young people and the old pay the taxes, maybe the young are likely to pay the money for the sport facility while old people would like to spend it on the hospitals. Do they really understand which is better for the city? Probably not, people are just atoning to spend money on improving the life besides him, which may be not the best choice for the city.[如果能加上，nonresidents can understand although they do not pay taxes就更好了]

Last but not least, when the arguer tries to make the point that the nonresident will not be disappointed by restricting membership[？], he provides the information in the neighing Elm City’s Civic Club, which is incomplete and selective to prove his point. Twenty-five nonresidents seems to be a small portion, but maybe it is because there are rare people working in Elm City and at the same time living outside of the city, or the reason might be that the club is not popular so that no one want to join it, even the local people. So in this case, the data refer to carrying on an open policy in the Elm City’s Civic can not be taken seriously by the Oak City.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the recommendation, the arguer would have to provide evidence that the residents understand how the money can be best used to improve the city, and moreover, the arguer must presents[present] more evidences to prove the nonresidents doesn’t[?prove...doesn't] understand the policy and the business of the city and they do not care about being involved in the club.

嗯，我觉得写得挺好的，基本上都符合要求啦，词汇也很丰富。有一点，虽然不是你文章的问题，但是我还是想说下。模版只是一个形式，能帮助更快的成文，但老美确实更看重的是怎样论证的，我觉得你模版的东西用得很好，希望以后能在自己论证方面更突出些啦。

[ 本帖最后由 ldsun 于 2007-7-26 12:13 编辑 ]