argument192 0806Gstrive小组第二次作业

honglingdangUID: 2436513

192The following is a letter to the editor of the Roseville Gazette.

"Despite opposition from some residents of West Roseville, the arguments in favor of merging the townships of Roseville and West Roseville are overwhelming. First, residents in both townships are confused about which authority to contact when they need a service; for example, the police department in Roseville receives many calls from residents of West Roseville. This sort of confusion would be eliminated with the merger. Second, the savings in administrative costs would be enormous, since services would no longer be duplicated: we would have only one fire chief, one tax department, one mayor, and so on. And no jobs in city government would be lost—employees could simply be reassigned. Most importantly, the merger will undoubtedly attract business investments as it did when the townships of Hamden and North Hamden merged ten years ago."



The author conclude that township of rosevile and west rosevile should merge, and the merger would lead to elimination of the chaotic condition, decrease of the government cost, and attraction of business investment. But the three reason is all unwarrented and so the conclusion is also unbelieveable.

First of all, it’s said in the letter that the confusion would be eliminated with the merger that peoplr in both of the tow town will know which authority to contact after then. It would be right only if the confusion is because of the existence of the two government. But perhaps there are other reasons lead to the chaos, and the merger would do nothing to the chaos. Even if there’s no other reason for the confusion, they can use much easier way to deal with the problem such as tell everyone in the two town which is the right number to search help. Even if the method above can not solve the problem, if the new merged government cannot let the residents of the both communities be familiar to the change, the confusion would continue, or even get more and more serious.

Secondly, what the author discribed in the letter is contradiction that the saving in administrative costs would be enormous because of no longer duplicated service and no jobs in city government would be lost. From the argument, we can see that the merger of the two town would lead to the reducing of the service and then inevitably lead to the reducing of the jobs, unless they can imploy enough new job to meet the need. If retain the number of the jobs, the cost of the government can not be reduced. I cannot accept the author’s conclusion that a merger can solve the two problem all together.

Thirdly, the author faithly take the experience of Hamden to Rosevile. There’s no evidence that it’s the merger that enable Hamden to attract businiss investment. Even if the merger make Hamden more atractive to the investors, how can we know the merger would also make Rosevile more attractive? Perhaps Rosevile is a kind of barren land with no investment value, no matter what measures we take, the city would never be attractive. So, the author's argument is not credible.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the actual reason lead of the chaotic condition. To strengthen the author’s conclusion, he or she must explain the contradiction between saving money and the stabilization of the jobs, and provide tangible exidence to prove that the experience of hameden can be used in this area.

forandomUID: 2449233

The author conclude[concludes] that township[townships] of rosevile[大写Roseville] and west rosevile[大写West Roseville] should merge, and the merger would lead to elimination of the chaotic condition, decrease of the government cost, and attraction of business investment. But the three reason[reasons] is all unwarranted[unwarranted] and so the conclusion is also unbelieveable[unbelievable].
[简洁的开头，挺好]

First of all, it’s said in the letter that the confusion would be eliminated with the merger [so] that peoplr[people] in both of the tow town will know which authority to contact after then. [建议用so that引导结果状语从句，否则看不出来that引导的这个从句在句子中充当什么成分]It would be right only if the confusion is because of[由…...导致，建议用result from] the existence of the two government. But perhaps there are other reasons lead to the chaos, and the merger would do nothing to the chaos. Even if there’s no other reason for the confusion, they can use much easier way to deal with the problem such as tell everyone in the two town[towns] which is the right number to search help. Even if the method above can not solve the problem, if the new merged government cannot let the residents of the both communities be familiar to the change, the confusion would continue, or even get more and more serious.

Secondly, what the author described[described] in the letter is contradiction[虽然contradiction可以作不可数名字，建议此处用形容词contradictive作表语] that the saving in administrative costs would be enormous because of no longer duplicated service and no jobs in city government would be lost. From the argument, we can see that the merger of the two town[towns] would lead to the reducing of the service and then inevitably lead to the reducing of the jobs, unless they can imploy[employ job，雇佣工作，好像没有这样的表达，建议用offer/provide jobs] enough new job[jobs] to meet the need. If retain the number of the jobs, the cost of the government can not be reduced. I cannot accept the author’s conclusion that a merger can solve the two problem[problems] all together.

Thirdly, the author faithly[在www.merriam-websta.com上没找着这个词] take the experience of Hamden to Rosevile[Roseville]. There’s no evidence that it’s the merger that enable Hamden to attract business[business] investment. Even if the merger make[makes] Hamden more atractive[attractive] to the investors, how can we know the merger would also make Rosevile[Roseville] more attractive? Perhaps Rosevile[Roseville] is a kind of barren land with no investment value, no matter what measures we take, the city would never be attractive. So, the author's argument is not credible.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the actual reason lead of the chaotic condition. To strengthen the author’s conclusion, he or she must explain the contradiction between saving money and the stabilization of the jobs, and provide tangible exidence[evidence] to prove that the experience of hameden[Hamden] can be used in this area.

[肯能是因为限时写作，拼写错误出现得较多。
开头的写法挺好，简洁精炼。
正文段逻辑在大方向上没什么问题，对于提出的论点都有足够的例子来支撑。语言可以再精雕细镂一下。]

[ 本帖最后由 forandom 于 2008-2-25 17:37 编辑 ]