Argument216【0806G-Sunbird小组】第5次作业

javen3721UID: 2332354

TOPIC: ARGUMENT216 - The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement.

"Because of its spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate, Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire. As a bonus, housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Nevertheless, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. Retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average."
WORDS: 333          TIME: 00:40:26          DATE: 2007-11-22 21:43:08

In the argument, the arguer claims that Clearview should be a top choice for the retired persons as the reason of the low housing costs, new programs to improve public services and excellent health care. However, a careful examination of the analysis would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First, the arguer fails to convince us that the housing costs is the lowest in all the cities. It is entirely likely that the housing costs might still be the highest in the nation though they have fallen significantly during the past year. And the real estate taxes are just lower than those in neighboring towns, then, what about in other regions? Perhaps it is much lower than that in Clearview. So how do you say that it is the best choice?

Secondly, the arguer provides no evidence that the promise of the mayor would be exactly kept. We could not rule out the factor that whether the policy will be consistent after his tenure. Even if he keeps his promise, when will the new programs be carried out? Ten years later? or thirty year later? Therefore, Only when further information is provided, we could not accept the conclusion.

Finally, the arguer unfairly assumes that the health care is excellent on the basis of the number of physicians. What the customers mostly concern is the quality rather than the number of the physicians. Perhaps they are all empiricists. Moreover, the number of physicians in the area is just far greater than the national average, which does not mean they have the most physician than any other towns.

In conclusion, the arguer's recommendation relies on some dubious evidence and is of course open to doubt. To bolster the analysis, the arguer should show much more examples to justify that housing cost is the lowest and the health care is best in all the country as well as the mayor will keep his promise as soon as possible. Without these, we could not accept the conclusion.

请大家多多指教，有拍必回~~~~

lewis0409220UID: 2238498

:) In the argument, the arguer claims that Clearview should be a top choice for the retired persons as the reason of the low housing costs, new programs to improve public services and excellent health care. However, a careful examination of the analysis would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First, the arguer fails to convince us that the housing costs is the lowest in all the cities.(the lowest是不必要的,只要very low 就可以了) It is entirely likely that the housing costs might still be the highest in the nation though they have fallen significantly during the past year. And the real estate taxes are just lower than those in neighboring towns, then, what about in other regions? Perhaps it is much lower than that in Clearview. So how do you say that it is the best choice?(感觉不太好)(后面一点是我没想到的)

Secondly, the arguer provides no evidence that the promise of the mayor would be exactly kept. We could not rule out the factor that whether the policy will be consistent after his tenure. Even if he keeps his promise,(he的任期到了之后,能不能 keeps his promise也不能由he决定了,可以把he改成Clearview) when will the new programs be carried out? Ten years later? or thirty year later? Therefore, Only when further information is provided, we could not accept the conclusion.

Finally, the arguer unfairly assumes that the health care is excellent on the basis of the number of physicians. What the customers mostly concern is the quality rather than the number of the physicians. Perhaps they are all empiricists. Moreover, the number of physicians in the area is just far greater than the national average, which does not mean they have the most physician(?)(the greatest number of physicians) than any other towns.(医生数量为什么要最多呢?)

In conclusion, the arguer's recommendation relies on some dubious evidence and is of course open to doubt. To bolster the analysis, the arguer should show much more examples to justify that housing cost is the lowest and the health care is best in all the country as well as the mayor will keep his promise as soon as possible. Without these, we could not accept the conclusion.

几个错误都找出来了,我觉得每一段的内容还能再丰富些
另外我不同意每个方面都必需最好的观点,比如X=A1+B1+C1,Y+A2+B2+C2,Z=A3+B3+C3,X在X,Y,Z中最大,并不一定要A1,B1,C1分别最大
不同意可以交流下
有时间改改我的:  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=768041&page=1&extra=page%3D3#pid1771118963 :)


[ 本帖最后由 lewis0409220 于 2007-11-24 16:26 编辑 ]

javen3721UID: 2332354

非常感谢你的指正,非常中肯,第一点中the lowest确实是我考虑不周，至于我说的most physician我当时的考虑是按照文中的逻辑，医生数量越多，就代表医疗条件越好，所以就说那句，呵呵，但是还是没有表达清楚，

至于你说的每一段的内容可以再丰富一点，我深有感触，我以前习惯用短语表达，然后一句就说了很多的东西（这一篇还不是很明显，housepainting那个是反面的典型代表），别人都是拆分成很多句子，这个确实应该改正，刚才我又写了一篇，感觉稍微好一点了，欢迎你指正

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=768354&extra=page%3D3

[ 本帖最后由 javen3721 于 2007-11-24 17:30 编辑 ]