Argument177 你拍拍我拍拍

woodmanUID：161906

Argument177 The following is a letter that recentlyappeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.
"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club—a club whoseprimary objective is to discuss local issues—should continue to be restrictedto people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak Citybut who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of thecity. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because onlyresidents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the moneycould best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership inthis 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 membershippolicy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City'sClub in the last ten years."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1作者没有证明那些在O工作外地居民不理解O的政治和经济。
A长时间在此工作，相当了解这个城市。
B这些人可以提供他们所住城市的经验，可供O参考。
2不交城市税的人不一定不知道怎么利用这些钱
3作者没有证明这种限制不会让在O工作的外地居民失望。
A. E城的fact不能作为证据。E城可能是小城，外地人很少，25人占本城外地人口一个很高的比例。所以25人不容忽视，也许他们会很失望-如果被限制加入club的话。
B. 在O工作的人当中可能有很大一部分是将来想要在此定居的，那么他们将十分关心O的发展。如果O限制成员资格，也许会失望

The arguerconcludes that Oak City's Civic Club should continueto restrict its membership to nonresidents. His reasons are: (1) People who workin Oak Citybut who live there cannot truly understand situation of the city; (2) Only residents who paycity taxes understand how manage the money to improve the city; (3) Such restrictionwould not cause disappointment in that Elm City'sCivic Club did not set such limitation but few nonresidents joined it. His argumentcontains several facets that are questionable.

Regarding his first reason, the arguer fails to provide anyevidence to prove that those nonresidents who work in Oak City can’t achieve a deepunderstanding of the city’s business and political situation. He ignores thepossibility that such nonresidents may very know the city’s business andpolitics conditions as well, since they have spent their work time here, whichmay be many years, a time quite enough for them to get familiar with everyaspect of the city. So they might be able to advance some feasible suggestions.What’s more, those nonresidents would offer the experience of clubs that playthe same function as Oak City's Civic Club’s in cities they live in, hence, Oak City'sCivic Club could draw many useful lessons. From this point, the argument wouldbe questionable, at best.

As for the second reason, there is no certainty that thosewho pay city taxes could know how to manage the money to improve the city. Weall know that whether a person understands how to make full use of the money mainlydepends on their knowledge of the economy, politics as well as urban affairs,the experience in city planning, and the foresight on development of the city, whichcannot be obtained merely by paying the tax. It is entirely possible among thenonresidents there are some people skillful in urban planning and public fundoperating. If they were excluded from the club, it would really be a loss sincethe club misses the chance to draw on thewisdom of the masses.

When referring the third reason, the arguer does not offerany proof to convince me that such restricting membership might not disappointnonresidents worked in Oak City. He cites the factof neighboring Elm City's Civic Club, whichdoes not limit its membership but few nonresidents join in. However, Elm Citymight be small and undeveloped, so there might be few nonresidents come to workin the city, 40 for example. So 25 might take up more than an half of the totalnonresidents employed in the city, and 25 does not means that few people areinterested in the club, and have no disappointment if they were limited to joinin the Elm City's Civic Club. If this were thecase, the fact the arguer cites might fail to support the conclusion; hence, itis unreasonable to believe that no nonresident would be disappointed by therestriction. Beside, it is quite possible that some nonresidents who come towork in Oak City might be aiming at settling down inthis city, so they pay close attention to the development of the city. Perhapsthe restricting membership makes them feel being repulsed and discriminated, so they arefairly disappointed. Therefore,the argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

To sum up, to persuade me that it is necessary for Oak City's Civic Club to restrict its membership tononresidents worked there, the arguer must provide enough information thatthese nonresidents do not understand the business and politics of the city andshow me that those who do not pay tax do not know how to money to improve thecity. Moreover, the arguer should show me that such restriction in membershipwould not make nonresidents employed there feel disappointed.

zhangjing106UID：2157010

The arguer concludes that Oak City's Civic Club should continue to restrict its membership to nonresidents. His reasons are: (1) People who work in Oak City but who live there cannot truly understand situation of the city; (2) Only residents who pay city taxes understand how manage the money to improve the city; (3) Such restriction would not cause disappointment in that Elm City's Civic Club did not set such limitation but few nonresidents joined it. His argument contains several facets that are questionable. （这种开头Nashiong也喜欢用，不过个人觉得篇幅太长了，开头还是简洁点好）Regarding his first reason, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to prove that those nonresidents who work in Oak City can’t achieve a deep understanding of the city’s business and political situation. He ignores the possibility that such（这个形容词用的好不好？） nonresidents may very know the city’s business and politics conditions as well, since they have spent their work time here, which may be many years, a time quite enough for them to get familiar with every aspect of the city. So they might be able to advance some feasible suggestions. What’s more, those nonresidents would offer the experience of clubs that play the same function as Oak City's Civic Club’s in cities they live in, hence, Oak City's Civic Club could draw many useful lessons. From this point, the argument would be questionable, at best.As for the second reason, there is no certainty that those who pay city taxes could know how to manage the money to improve the city. We all know that whether a person understands how to make full use of the money mainly depends on their knowledge of the economy, politics as well as urban affairs, the experience in city planning, and the foresight on development of the city, which cannot be obtained merely by paying the tax. It is entirely possible among the nonresidents there are some people skillful in urban planning and public fund operating. If they were excluded from the club, it would really be a loss since the club misses the chance to draw on the wisdom of the masses. （嗯，把城市税的支付问题模糊化处理比较好）When referring the third reason, the arguer does not offer any proof to convince me that such restricting membership might not disappoint nonresidents worked in Oak City. He cites the fact of neighboring Elm City's Civic Club, which does not limit its membership but few nonresidents join in. However, Elm City might be small and undeveloped, so there might be few nonresidents come to work in the city, 40 for example. So 25 might take up more than an half of the total nonresidents employed in the city, and 25 does not means that few people are interested in the club, and have no disappointment if they were limited to join in the Elm City's Civic Club. If this were the case, the fact the arguer cites might fail to support the conclusion; hence, It is unreasonable to believe that no nonresident would be disappointed by there striction.（虽然说的过去，但觉得这个反例不太可能成立） Beside, it is quite possible that some nonresidents who come to work in Oak City might be aiming at settling down in this city, so they pay close attention to the development of the city. Perhaps the restricting membership makes them feel being repulsed and discriminated, so they are fairly disappointed. Therefore, the argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.To sum up, to persuade me that it is necessary for Oak City's Civic Club to restrict its membership to nonresidents worked there, the arguer must provide enough information that these nonresidents do not understand the business and politics of the city and show me that those who do not pay tax do not know how to money to improve the city. Moreover, the arguer should show me that such restriction in membership would not make nonresidents employed there feel disappointed.
我认为除了开头有点长，和第四段的反例有待斟酌，别的都很好了