argument177 [0710G Victors互助小组]第8次作业 by Lemon

lemon71500UID: 2335516

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."

In this argument the speaker presents his/her attitude that Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to people who live in that city, with some reasons above to support this point. His/her statement seems logical and reasonable at first glance, yet in fact these reasons above are not so substantial to sustain his conclusion, in many aspects it is ambiguous and vulnerable.

First of all, the speaker asserts that people who live out of Oak City could not truly understand the business and politics of this city, no matter where s/he works. Obviously this assumption is lack of evidence and persuasion, since the workers are working in this city; it is reasonable that they are familiar with all policies and business, after all in their daily life they have to contact with all these rules. Albeit their homes are not here, the most time they spend is in Oak City, so it is not necessary to consider whether they are residents of this city.

The speaker presents a more arbitrary assumption that since only residents pay city taxes, these non-residents who need not to spend these money won't understand how the money could best be used in city improvement. How can the speaker know that non-residents know nothing about the development? Since they are working and traveling in this city everyday, they must be acquaint with many details about this city, and where should be improved, they are more authoritative than someone who seldom go to anywhere.

At last, the speaker leads a sightless comparison about the situation between this city and his neighbor-Elm city. In ten years the club in the neighboring city has only absorbed twenty-five nonresident members, indeed it is too slight a number, but it does not represent that the result in Oak city would be similar, and here it lacks an elaborate introduction, there is a possibility that non-resident workers are very rare in Elm city, and it is a relatively conservative place, so no much people would join in its club, on the contrary, the workers from other places in Oak city may be considerable and active, the club open to them is an advisable choice.

Consequently, in this argument the author's evidences and statements are not substantial enough to support his/her point, if he want to manifest his conclusion is true, here needs a deep and thorough investigation around this topic, such as the number and occupation of workers from other cities and their interests about this Civic Club. Only that can s/he draw a conclusion which is more accurate and reliable.