[a习作temp] argument177 [0710G +U Aug小组]第1次作业 [复制链接]

ddbear
UID: 2275294

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 507
注册时间: 2006-11-20
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-7-25 22:14:17 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

终于写完了，希望没有托全组后腿……
（登录也不容易，发了2次了……）

Citing the Club in Elm City has attracted only 25% nonresidents to join it in last decade, the editorial of Oak City Gazatte recommends that the membership of Oak City's Civic Club (OCCC) should be restrained only to the residents, since the nonresidents are neither necessary nor important to the city construction. However, this argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, to demonstrate the nonresidents employed in Oak City are not care whether they could join the OCCC and will not feel disappointed for this restrained policy, this argument cites the survey of the neighboring Elm City. The editorial must assume that all relevant circumstances involving the two cities are the same. Obviously, this assumption is unwarranted. For example, even though the two cities locate adjacently, comparing with the Elm City, Oak city may have a better economy environment and attract more immigrations from the other cities who are not the residents yet but desire to be the members of the city and pay much attention to the city improvement.

Secondly, the argument concludes that nonresidents do not care the city construction because they do not pay city taxes as the residents do. Yet claimed cause-and-effect relationship lacks sufficient evidences. Although they do not pay city taxes, they work in the city, they need the traffic system, communication, food services, entertainment, and so forth. Everything of these aspects related to the city construction which they will pay attention to rather than be indifference of as informed in the argument.

In the third place, the editorial assumes that to benefit the club and city most, OCCC must forbid the nonresidents membership. However, no evidence is provided to substantiate this assumption. Although some nonresidents’ members may not devote into the club and city business, there is no evidence that OCCC will lose his efficiency by containing certain nonresidents’ members. At the same time, there may be some other means to advance OCCC and Oak City. They could reform the organization of OCCC, optimize the leading group, study the good experience from other Civic clubs, and so forth. Overlooking and ruling out these and other alternative means, the editorial cannot confidently conclude that restricted membership policy is necessary.

In the forth place, this argument depends on the additional unsubstantiated assumption that restricting the membership of OCCC helps the understanding and improvement of city construction. Absent evidence that this is the case, it is equally possible that residents’ members do not care the city business and politics. Perhaps some of them work in another city and spend most of their time and energy to that city, or some of them belong to certain religions or believe in anarchism so that they do not even wish to join the club.

To sum up, the editorial of restraining the nonresidents joining in the OCCC is not well supported. To strengthen it the author should provide better and more evidence that the nonresidents contribute small part to OCCC or even bring in the negative influence. To prove they will unlikely be disappointed of this policy, it is better to offer the survey from Oak city or demonstrate the analogy reasonableness between Elm City and Oak city.