argument177 勇往直前小组

zhangjing106UID：2157010

In the augument, the arguer insists that Oak City's Civic Club should only let residents of Oak City become members. In order to support his opinion, the arguer provides several points as his evidences. However, I do not agree with him because of the flaws lying in his logical inducement.

The first flaw is that the arguer considers that people who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. So these nonresidents could not provide considerable points during discussing local issues. At first glance, the arguer's opinion seems rational. However, he ignores some facts which could make nonresidents who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere understand the business and politics of the city well. Perhaps some nonresidents work in the government departments of Oal City, where they could know the politics better than residents. Or perhaps some nonresidents work in finance companies such as bank and insurance, where they could recieve fresher business information than residents. The arguer's conclusion is too absolute to declaim that nonresidents cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city.

The second flaw is that the arguer induces that only residents could understand the best using way of the money to improve the city without any detailed information about tax laws of Oak City. It is possible that people who work in Oak City also need to pay city taxes because they are payed salary from incomes of Oak City. Actually, in tax laws of most cities, both residents and nonresidents who work in cities should pay city taxes, because they all utilize the resource of the city, such as roads, bridges and electricy. Without introducing tax laws on city taxes of Oak City, the arguer could not persuade me that nonresidents need not pay city taxes. Then, the conclusion that only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve is unsupported at all. Even if only residents need pay city taxes, nonresidents who work in Oak City also could understand how to use money is the best method to improve the city, because these people who could gain more money with the devemopment of the city might be more sensitive about the city's improvement.

The last flaw is that without any evidence the arguer draw a conclusion that the restricing membership is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, compared with neighboring Elm City's Civic Club. No evidence could make me believe that these two cities have any relation could been compared together. Perhaps Elm City has little nonresidents who work in it, but Oak City has a lot of nonresidents working in it. Or perhaps nonresidents who work in Oak City are more interesting in discussing local issues than ones working in Elm City. With so many possiblities, the arguer could not easily draw the conclusion that such restricting is unlikely to disappoint the nonresidents employed in Oak City. Moreover, even if only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years, it could not infer that an open menbership policy could not attract nonresidents take part in. It is possible that there are some other better clubs which could attract nonresidents to discuss local issues except Elm City's Club.

In summary, if the arguer wants to make his suggestion more persuasive, he should provide more evidences about working conditions of nonresidents who work inOak City, city tax laws of Oak City and comparing detailed information about membership policy between Oak City and Elm City.

joyceningUID：2314914

argument177 勇往直前小组

In the augument, the arguer insists that Oak City's Civic Club should only let residents of Oak City become members(太中式英语了). In order to support his opinion, the arguer provides（presents貌似更好）several points as his evidences. However, I do not agree with him because of the flaws lying in his logical inducement.

The first flaw is that the arguer considers that people who work in Oak City but who（去掉） live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. So these nonresidents could not provide considerable points during discussing local issues.（没必要再把作者的观点这么详细的重复一点，简单复述，快点进入反驳最重要）At first glance, the arguer's opinion seems rational. However, he ignores some facts which could make nonresidents who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere（nonresidents本来就是这些人，没必要再用定语从句了）understand the business and politics of the city well. Perhaps some nonresidents work in the government departments of Oal City, where they could know the politics better than residents. Or perhaps some nonresidents work in finance companies such as bank and insurance, where they could recieve fresher business information than residents. The arguer's conclusion is too absolute to declaim that nonresidents cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city.

The second flaw is that the arguer induces that only residents could understand the best using way of the money to improve the city without any detailed information about tax laws of Oak City.（这个跟上一个基本一样，不用单独立一个反驳点，归到上一个就好了吧）It is possible that people who work in Oak City also need to pay city taxes because they are payed salary from incomes of Oak City. Actually, in tax laws of most cities, both residents and nonresidents who work in cities should pay city taxes（税法上来反驳很牵强啊，因为不同地方税法差别大，没有说服力）, because they all utilize the resource of the city, such as roads, bridges and electricy. Without introducing tax laws on city taxes of Oak City, the arguer could not persuade me that nonresidents need not pay city taxes. Then, the conclusion that only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve is unsupported at all. Even if only residents need pay city taxes, nonresidents who work in Oak City also could understand how to use money is the best method to improve the city, because these people who could gain more money with the devemopment of the city might be more sensitive about the city's improvement.

The last flaw is that without any evidence the arguer draw on a conclusion that the restricing membership is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, compared with neighboring Elm City's Civic Club. No evidence could make me believe that these two cities have any relation could been compared together(这句很不通顺) . Perhaps Elm City has little（修饰不可数名词）nonresidents who work in it, but Oak City has a lot of nonresidents working in it. Or perhaps nonresidents who work in Oak City are more interesting in discussing local issues than ones working in Elm City. With so many possiblities, the arguer could not easily draw the conclusion that such restricting is unlikely to disappoint the nonresidents employed in Oak City. Moreover, even if only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years, it could not infer that an open menbership policy could not attract nonresidents take part in. It is possible that there are some other better clubs which could attract nonresidents to discuss local issues except Elm City's Club.

In summary, if the arguer wants to make his suggestion more persuasive, he should provide more evidences about working conditions of nonresidents who work inOak City, city tax laws of Oak City and comparing detailed information about membership policy between Oak City and Elm City.

我觉得，点是找到了，但是反驳的时候有点罗嗦，重复很多题目中的话，没必要，主要是反例要有力，有分析。
个人意见 呵呵 仅供参考

woodmanUID：161906

In theaugument, the arguer insists that Oak City's Civic Club should only let residents of Oak Citybecome members. In order to support his opinion, the arguer provides severalpoints as his evidences. However, I do not agree with him because of the flawslying in his logical inducement.

Thefirst flaw is that the arguer considers that people who work in Oak Citybut who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of thecity. So these nonresidents could not provideconsiderable points during discussing local issues.（这个重复了前面的句子，删掉好了） At first glance, the arguer's opinion seems rational. （多余，删掉）However, heignores some facts which could make nonresidents who work in Oak City but wholive elsewhere understand the business and politics of the city well. Perhapssome nonresidents work in the government departments of Oal City,where they could know the politics better than residents. Or perhaps somenonresidents work in finance companies such as bank and insurance, where theycould recieve fresher business information（这个值得研究，实际上题目讲钱的使用应该主要指财政资金了，它所投入的也是公共品，比如市政设施等非盈利目的。） than residents. The arguer's conclusion is too absolute to declaimthat nonresidents cannot truly understand the business and politics of thecity.

Thesecond flaw is that the arguer induces that only residents could understand thebest using way of the money to improve the city without any detailedinformation about tax laws of Oak City. It is possible that people who work in OakCity also need to pay city taxesbecause they are payed salary from incomes of Oak City.Actually, in tax laws of most cities, both residents and nonresidents who workin cities should pay city taxes, because they all utilize the resource of thecity, such as roads, bridges and electricy. Without introducing tax laws oncity taxes of Oak City, the arguer couldnot persuade me that nonresidents need not pay city taxes.（这个写法有争议，这是题目一个默认的前提—非居民不交税，有人说可以写，有人说不要写，我只是提一下，呵呵） Then, the conclusion that only residents understand how the moneycould best be used to improve is unsupported at all. Even if only residentsneed pay city taxes, nonresidents who work in Oak Cityalso could understand how to use money is the best method to improve the city,because these people who could gain more money with the devemopment of the citymight be more sensitive about the city's improvement.

Thelast flaw is that without any evidence the arguer draw a conclusion that therestricing membership is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidentsemployed in Oak City,compared with neighboring Elm City's Civic Club. Noevidence could make me believe that these two cities have any relation couldbeen compared together. Perhaps Elm City has little nonresidents who work in it, but Oak Cityhas a lot of nonresidents working in it. Or perhaps nonresidents who work in Oak City aremore interesting in discussing local issues than ones working in Elm City.With so many possiblities, the arguer could not easily draw the conclusion thatsuch restricting is unlikely to disappoint the nonresidents employed in Oak City.Moreover, even if only twenty-five nonresidents havejoined Elm City's Club in the last ten years,（题目提供的事实，不要让步了） it couldnot infer that an open menbership policy could not attract nonresidents takepart in. It is possible that there are some other better clubs which couldattract nonresidents to discuss local issues except Elm City'sClub.

Insummary, if the arguer wants to make his suggestion more persuasive, he shouldprovide more evidences about working conditions of nonresidents who work inOakCity, city tax laws of Oak City and comparing detailed information aboutmembership policy between Oak City and Elm City.

yangqchUID：2360917

刚也写了 我的问题就是第一个点的例子没想出来 而你的2个反例真的很好 谢谢了

我的建议是 做些句型变换 有些主动转被动不需要费什么时间思考的
还有可以用NONRESIDENTS来代替一串定语从句 不用担心字数不够
时间放在那边的 不停地打就是了