argument192 miao96

miao96UID: 2360053

argument 192


The editorial recommends the merge of Rosevile and West Rosevile. The author claim that the merge will eliminate the residents' confusion about which authority to contact and will save the administrative costs. The author also point out that the merge will undoubtedly attract business investment. I find this claim problematic in several following aspects.

The threshold problem about the editorial is the claim that the merge of the two townships will eliminate the residents' confusion about which authority to contact. Although the merge is necessary to eliminate the confusion, the editor overlooks the possibility that the merge will not in itself suffice to eliminate the confusion. Specifically, until the residents realize the merge and get to know how to respond it appropriately, the confusion will continue. Therefore, some measures of communication should be taken to assure the elimination of confusion.

The argument also assumes unfairly that the merge will surely save the administrative costs. The editorial seems to make two irreconcilable claims. One is that the merge will result in the decrease in the number of faculty in city government; the other is that no current employee will be become unemployed as a result of the merge. The editorial fails to consider that eliminating duplicative jobs would decrease the number of current municipal employees and the resign of the municipal employees will increase the administrative costs. Therefore, as it stands the argument is self-contradictory.

Finally, the author's claim that the merge will attract business investment relies on the hasty assumption that the newly merged Rosevile would be similar to Hamden in every way, affecting their attractiveness to business investment. It is possible that Hamden's business rates, labor pool, or even climate are more attractive than the newly merged Rosevile's merge would be. If so, then the proposed merge in itself might accomplish little toward attracting business investment to Rosevile. Without evidence that Hamben and the newly merged Rosevile would be equally attractive to business investment I cannot accept the author's conclusion that the merge will carry the same result for Rosevile as for Hamben.

In sum, the editorial not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions. To strengthen the argument the author must modify the recommendation to account for other measures needed to eliminate the confusion mentioned in the editorial. The author must also provide a cost-benefit analysis about the saving of administrative costs due to the merge. Finally, the author must show that the new Rosevile would be just as attractive to business investment as the newly Hamben has been.

icedmathUID: 2343618

argument192 miao96The editorial (writer?) recommends the merge of Rosevil(l)e and West Rosevil(l)e. The author claim(s) that the merge(r) will eliminate the residents' confusion about which authority to contact and will save the administrative costs. The author also point(s) out that the merge(r) will undoubtedly attract business investment(s). I find this claim problematic in several following aspects. The threshold problem about the editorial is the claim that the merge(r) of the two townships will eliminate the residents' confusion about which authority to contact. (a repeat to the first paragraph) Although the merge(r) is necessary to eliminate (repeat: cut down, diminish, decline) the confusion, the editor overlooks the possibility that the merge(r) will not in itself suffice to eliminate (repeat: cut down, diminish, decline) the confusion. Specifically, until the residents realize the merge(r) and get to know how to respond it (it means what?) appropriately, the confusion will (not: not…until structure) continue. Therefore, some measures of communication (meaning?) should be taken to assure the elimination of confusion.你的大意是不是说要加强对民众的宣传，以使民众能够不再出现或者减少confusion？提出take measures无可厚非，不过在前面尚未对题目中的观点或者论证提出到位的驳论之前，这样是不是有些欠妥，有偏题之嫌？The argument also assumes unfairly that the merge(r) will surely save the administrative costs. The editorial seems to make two irreconcilable claims. One is that the merge(r) will result in the decrease in the number of faculty in city government; the other is that no current employee will be become unemployed as a result of the merge(r). The editorial fails to consider that eliminating duplicative jobs would decrease the number of current municipal employees and the resign of the municipal employees will increase the administrative costs. Therefore, as it stands the argument is self-contradictory.感觉像说了一半就打住了;)论证不够充分，针对观点说明得不够明确，加上对costs的进一步说明就更好了——老美习惯比较直接的思维而不是拐弯抹角的。Finally, the author's claim that the merge(r) will attract business investment(s) relies on the hasty assumption that the newly merged Rosevil(l)e would (subjunctive, excellent!) be similar to Hamden in every way, affecting their attractiveness to business investment(s). It is possible that Hamden's business rates, labor pool, or even climate (sure about their accuracies?) are more attractive than the newly merged Rosevil(l)e's merge would be. If so, then the proposed merge(r) in itself might accomplish little toward attracting business investment(s) to Rosevil(l)e. Without evidence that Hamb(d)en and the newly merged Rosevil(l)e would be equally attractive to business investment(s) I cannot accept the author's conclusion that the merge will carry the same result for Rosevil(l)e as for Hamb(d)en.In sum, the editorial not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions. To strengthen the argument the author must modify the recommendation to account for other measures needed to eliminate the confusion mentioned in the editorial. The author must also provide a cost-benefit analysis about the saving of administrative costs due to the merge(r). Finally, the author must show that the new Rosevil(l)e would be just as attractive to business investment as the newly Hamb(d)en has been (was).总结很好，比较全面，而且进一步深化了——不过语言略显单调。整体说来，文章脉络比较清晰，找出的驳论点也很到位。不过句式似乎欠丰富，有些复杂句显得有些矫揉，e做动词的地方太多，主语欠变化（斜线部分能够变化一下就好了就是拼写还是希望留心一下
（抱歉，网络原因一直没法回复）