Argument237【07-10G Superstar大帖】7.26 by Huaxinluobo

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

In this argument the article suggests that the best way to spur the economical development in Beauville City (BC) to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements. To get support the writer cite the successful experience of Dillton City(DC). However, after scrutiny I find the suggestion problematic in some aspects.

First of all, the suggest rests on the fact that unemployment in DC declined and economy increases after the policy is carried out. But merely the fact that two companies move in and hire 300 workers can not prove it. Lacking evidence, it is entirely possible that at the same time more companies moved out and more than 300 workers lost their jobs, it is also possible that the two new companies’ contribution to economy is offset by other companies’ bad condition. So unless the writer provides convincing evidence, then the article can not convince me that the economy in DC is improved.

Secondly, the writer draws a false causal relationship between the policy and the relocation of the two companies on the fact that the policy preceded the relocation. There may be other possible reasons for the companies to move in beyond the policy. For example, maybe the quality of labor of BC is better than other places, maybe the material for production in DC is cheaper, or maybe the cost of transportation from DC to other regions is lower. Without more evidence about that the policy is the chief reason of the relocation of the companies, the suggestion is unwarranted.

Finally, even the policy is effective in drawing the relocation of companies in DC and the relocation of companies have significant positive effect on the economy and unemployment in DC, the writer fails to prove that the policy of DC may also be applicable to BC, for there may exist some differences that could influence the policy’s feasibility in BC. Perhaps the tax rate in BC is already quite low, or perhaps other financial inducements is already favorable, if any of the case is true then the policy of DC are not likely to be effective and the suggestion is only a poor advice.

To sum up, because of a few flaws the article fails to prove that the suggestion will be effective in BC. To better support the suggestion the writer need to provide more evidence to prove that the policy functions in DC and at the same time applicable to BC.

gyyxUID: 2290150

this argument the article suggests that the best way to spur the economical development in Beauville City (BC) to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements. To get support the writer cite the successful experience of Dillton City(DC). However, after scrutiny I find the suggestion problematic in some aspects.

First of all, the suggest【suggestion】 rests on the fact that unemployment in DC declined and economy increases after the policy is carried out. But merely the fact that two companies move in and hire 300 workers can not prove it. Lacking evidence, it is entirely possible that at the same time more companies moved out and more than 300 workers lost their jobs, it is also possible that the two new companies’ contribution to economy is offset by other companies’ bad condition. So unless the writer provides convincing evidence, then the article can not convince me that the economy in DC is improved.

Secondly, the writer draws a false causal relationship between the policy and the relocation of the two companies on the fact that the policy preceded the relocation. There may be other possible reasons for the companies to move in beyond the policy. For example, maybe the quality of labor of BC is better than other places, maybe the material for production in DC is cheaper, or maybe the cost of transportation from DC to other regions is lower. Without more evidence about that the policy is the chief reason of the relocation of the companies, the suggestion is unwarranted.

Finally, even the policy is effective in drawing the relocation of companies in DC and the relocation of companies have significant positive effect on the economy and unemployment in DC, the writer fails to prove that the policy of DC may also be applicable to BC, for there may exist some differences that could influence the policy’s feasibility in BC. Perhaps the tax rate in BC is already quite low, or perhaps other financial inducements is already favorable, if any of the case is true then the policy of DC are not likely to be effective and the suggestion is only a poor advice.

To sum up, because of a few flaws the article fails to prove that the suggestion will be effective in BC. To better support the suggestion the writer need to provide more evidence to prove that the policy functions in DC and at the same time applicable to BC.

很流畅的一篇文章啊，加油

desirermimiUID: 2108321

Argument237【07-10G Superstar大帖】7.26 by Huaxinluobo
In this argument the article suggests that the best way to spur the economical development in Beauville City (BC) to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements. To get support the writer cite the successful experience of Dillton City(DC). However, after scrutiny I find the suggestion problematic in some aspects.

First of all, the suggest rests on the fact that unemployment in DC declined and economy increases after the policy is carried out. But merely the fact that two companies move in and hire 300 workers can not prove it. Lacking evidence, it is entirely possible that at the same time more companies moved out and more than 300 workers lost their jobs, it is also possible that the two new companies’ contribution to economy is offset by other companies’ bad condition. So unless the writer provides convincing evidence, then the article can not convince me that the economy in DC is improved. [specious evidence]

Secondly, the writer draws a false causal relationship between the policy and the relocation of the two companies on the fact that the policy preceded the relocation. There may be other possible reasons for the companies to move in beyond the policy. For example, maybe the quality of labor of BC is better than other places, maybe the material for production in DC is cheaper, or maybe the cost of transportation from DC to other regions is lower. Without more evidence about that the policy is the chief reason of the relocation of the companies, the suggestion is unwarranted.[causal oversimplified]

Finally, even the policy is effective in drawing the relocation of companies in DC and the relocation of companies have significant positive effect on the economy and unemployment in DC, the writer fails to prove that the policy of DC may also be applicable to BC, for there may exist some differences that could influence the policy’s feasibility in BC. Perhaps the tax rate in BC is already quite low, or perhaps other financial inducements is already favorable, if any of the case is true then the policy of DC are not likely to be effective and the suggestion is only a poor advice. [false analogy]

To sum up, because of a few flaws the article fails to prove that the suggestion will be effective in BC. To better support the suggestion the writer need to provide more evidence to prove that the policy functions in DC and at the same time applicable to BC.

[小结：整篇文章结构清晰，流畅。
字数再多一些比较好。
在三部分论证后，要不要加上一个段落，对于题目的质疑，即“影响经济的因素有很多，单说政策太片面；并且这样的政策也许会引起的不好之处作者并没考虑到。”
这样一来，可以把文章字数扩展。或者在各段论述时候，丰富论证的例子。]