Argument177

xsr6064UID：2312664

Argument 177

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 for 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: 394                Time: 50min

提纲：
Para 1. 开头陈述
Para 2. 指出是否住在Oak与是否了解当地的商业和政治无关
Para 3. 指出交税不一定就能了解如何投资
Para 4. 指出没有提供Elm civi club的具体情况
Para 5. 结论

With three main reasons, the speaker claims in the letter that the membership in Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. However, I find his argument relies on serious unproven assumptions that make it unconvincing.

First of all, the speaker asserts that people who live outside Oak cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city, but fail to provide evidence to prove this assertion. The location where people live can not decide whether they can understand the business and politics of Oak or not. Nonresidents who work in Oak city are quite possible to care and research the business and politics there, because these issues directly concern with their own benefits, and their suggestion about how the city would develop may be helpful. So the speaker can not ignore the possibility that the nonresidents can contribute to the city without any investigation.

In addition, since the decision of investment need certain expertise and a better understanding of the whole condition of the city, the fact that most of the city’s tax is paid by the residents cannot ensure that they can understand how the money can best be used to improve the city. Yet those nonresidents but have investment experience and have business in the city may give more valuable advices than local commons.

Finally, to support his argument that the restriction would not disappoint most of the nonresidents, the speaker cites an example of Elm City's Civic Club. But he does not provide detail information. It is possible that the total number of nonresidents is small in Elm, so that there rarely have nonresidents to join the civic club; it is also possible that those nonresidents live there only for vacations, so that they need not care about the development of the city. So in order to draw a justified conclusion, the speaker need eliminate all the possibilities.

In conclusion, the author of this letter fails to convince that the Oak city should continue to restrict the membership of the civic club. To strengthen the argument, he need provide us details about whether the nonresidents can understand the condition of the city, and whether they can give valuable advices for the city’s development. Besides, a clear investigation about why Elm’s civic club rarely have nonresident member is also helpful.

[ 本帖最后由 xsr6064 于 2007-8-7 02:50 编辑 ]

doris_gxcUID：2370933

With three main reasons, the speaker claims in the letter that the membership in Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. However, I find his argument relies on serious unproven assumptions that make it unconvincing.

First of all, the speaker asserts that people who live outside Oak cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city, but fail to provide evidence to prove this assertion. The location where people live can not decide whether they can understand the business and politics of Oak or not. Nonresidents who work in Oak city are quite possible to care and research the business and politics there, because these issues directly concern with their own benefits, and their suggestion about how the city would develop may be helpful. So the speaker can not ignore the possibility that the nonresidents can contribute to the city without any investigation(略显突兀，可以在之前提一下).

In addition, since the decision of investment need certain expertise and a better understanding of the whole condition of the city, the fact that most of the city’s tax is paid by the residents cannot ensure that they can understand how the money can best be used to improve the city. Yet those nonresidents but have investment experience and have business in the city may give more valuable advices than local commons.（这段感觉论证的不是很充分，可能少了一些模板句）

Finally, to support his argument that the restriction would not disappoint most of the nonresidents, the speaker cites an example of Elm City's Civic Club. But he does not provide detail information. It is possible that the total number of nonresidents is small in Elm, so that there rarely have nonresidents to join the civic club; it is also possible that those nonresidents live there only for vacations, so that they need not care about the development of the city. So in order to draw a justified conclusion, the speaker need eliminate all the possibilities.（这个逻辑有点变扭，感觉还是直接说provide evidence之类的比较容易让人理解，毕竟大家都这么写，呵）

In conclusion, the author of this letter fails to convince that the Oak city should continue to restrict the membership of the civic club. To strengthen the argument, he need provide us details about whether the nonresidents can understand the condition of the city, and whether they can give valuable advices for the city’s development.（是不是应该是why not毕竟作者的观点已经给明） Besides, a clear investigation about why Elm’s civic club rarely have nonresident member is also helpful.

总体很不错啊，无论是语言上还是技巧上。
再接再励！

[ 本帖最后由 doris_gxc 于 2007-8-7 08:48 编辑 ]