Argument192 0806GStrive小组第二次作业 forandom

forandomUID: 2449233

ARGUMENT 192


In this analysis, the arguer claims that the arguments in favor of merging the townships of Roseville and West Roseville are overwhelming. The conclusion is based on the benefits brought by the merge in three aspects: Firstly, the residents' confusion about from which authority to acquire service would be eliminated; Meanwhile, enormous administrative costs of the city government would be saved without unemployment; In addition, potential business investments would be attracted as what happened in the merge of Hamden and North Hamden several years ago. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

First of all, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. According to the argument, the police department in Roseville receives many calls from residents of West Roseville. This fact tells very little about what actual cause the phenomena. Since the frequent exchange of the two cities, it is likely that the parties are residents of West Roseville while the cases happened in or referred to Roseville. In this case, we can not use the term of "confusion" and the parties have the legal right to acquire service from the police department in Roseville. A further definite division of administrative duty may be a better solution to this problem than an arduous merger. Consequently, it is unwarranted to assume that confusion exists and it's unavoidable to merge the two towns.

In addition, the arguer intuitively insists that costs would be reduced，but unfortunately neglects other potential troubles. Firstly, it may not be a trifling sum of money for the merge. Transportation, new constructions, office commodities and so forth, money is needed everywhere. Secondly, as the arguer alleges, after the merge the services would no longer be duplicated but the staff in both townships would remain. Two groups of people are working for the same job, would it be a waste of payment and human resource? Thirdly, whether the quality of service would be ensured is another big question. For example, as we all know, the policeman must reach the scene in limited minutes after receive the order. With only one police station and a comparative larger work radius, would the promise be fulfilled? More prowl cars may be a good auxiliary method, but undoubtedly it would increase the burden.

Moreover, the argument is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that what happened in the merger of Hamden and North Hamden ten year ago would repeat, but he/her dose not provide any evidence that the two mergers are indeed comparable. It is likely that there was dominant industry or abundant mineral resource in Hamden and North Hamden ten years ago. After all, an investor would only fix his eye on profitable things unless meanwhile he is a blindfold philanthropist. It's ridiculous to attract investments only by merge the townships.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis dose not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer would have to provide more facts that there is indeed confusion in function between the government offices of the two towns. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to produce more evidence concerning the feasibility of merging the two townships.

[ 本帖最后由 forandom 于 2008-2-26 17:49 编辑 ]

honglingdangUID: 2436513

In this analysis, the arguer claims that the arguments in favor of merging the townships of Roseville and West Roseville are overwhelming. The conclusion is based on the benefits brought by the merge in three aspects: Firstly, the residents' confusion about from去掉from which authority to acquire service would be eliminated; Meanwhile, enormous administrative costs of the city government would be saved save money 是没有问题了，save cost也可以吗？我不太清楚啊without unemployment; In addition, potential business investments would be attracted as what happened in the merge of Hamden and North Hamden several years ago. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.觉得第一段有点??拢??旧习言?幕涣酥址绞接炙盗艘槐椋??蛞幌掳?/color]

First of all, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. According to the argument, the police department in Roseville receives many calls from residents of West Roseville. This fact tells very little about what actual cause the phenomena. Since since后面应该跟从句吧，应该不能跟短语吧，改成forthe frequent exchange of the two cities, it is likely that the parties我不认为party可以表达这个意思，用person或者perople就没有问题了吧 are residents of West Roseville while the cases happened in or referred torefer to在这是什么意思啊，不太明白 Roseville. In this case, we can not use the term of "confusion" and the parties have the legal right to acquire service from the police department in Roseville. A further definite division of administrative duty may be a better solution to this problem than an arduous merger. 这句蛮好的，学习一下，尤其是arduous Consequently, it is unwarranted to assume that confusion exists and it's unavoidable to merge the two towns.

In addition, the arguer intuitively insists that costs would be reduced，but unfortunately neglects other potential troubles. Firstly, it may not be a trifling sum of money for the merge.这句话是什么意思啊，看不懂 Transportation, new constructions, office commodities and so forth, money is needed everywhere. Secondly, as the arguer alleges, after the merge the services would no longer be duplicated but the staff in both townships would remain. Two groups of people are doing the same job, would it be a waste of payment and human resource? Thirdly, whether the quality of service would be ensured is another big question. For example, as we all know, the policeman must reach the scene in limited minutes after receive the order. With only one police station and a comparativecomparatively，用副词 larger work radius, would the promise尽管我能知道这个promise是指几分钟到达现场的承诺，但是你前面并没有提到这个，如果在前面把这个词铺垫一下就好了 be fulfilled? More prowl cars may be a good auxiliary method, but undoubtedly it would increase the burden.burden不能用increase，用aggravate应该可以吧

Moreover, the argument is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that what happened in the merger of Hamden and North Hamden ten year ago would repeat, but he/her dose not provide any evidence that the two mergers are indeed comparable. It is likely that there was dominant industry or abundant mineral resource in Hamden and North Hamden ten years ago. After all, an investor would only fix his eye on profitable things unless meanwhile 去掉meanwhilehe is a blindfold philanthropist. It's ridiculous to attract investments only by merge the townships.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis dosedoes,用can于其上更好一点 not lend strong support to用得好 what the arguer maintains. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer would have tohave to 就相当于一个情态动词了，跟前面的would在结构上重复 provide more facts that there is indeed confusion in function between the government offices of the two towns. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to 同上produce more evidence concerning the feasibility of merging the two townships.
本文在逻辑上基本上没有什么问题了，但是在语法上还存在一些问题需要解决，作为一篇argument文章来言，篇幅上是远远大于要求的，因此在考试中应该是写不完这么长的一篇文章的，所以在语言上还是精简一点会比较好。
不过我的语法和单词是我的弱点所在，如果有没发现的语法错误或者修改有错误的话，欢迎指教