April小组Argument195

deerprinceUID: 2394244

argument195

1)前提不成立，我们现在的财政危机是由于去年90%出城市作者的小说造成，没有资料证明这些书卖的不好。而其他因素，如成本上升，书市不好都有可能。
2)论据说小说是出版社的重心，这一点没有证据证实。假如出版社的主要书籍不是小说，就不能说我们的工作重心发生转移。
3)没有证据说明只出小镇作者的书就能解决财政问题。因为没有证据证明读者更喜欢小镇作家的作品。

In this argument, the editor recommends the president of the Liber Publishing Company (LPC) that they should return to publish only the works of regional small-town author in order to solve the financial troubles. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that the last year LPC moved away its original way to publish the works of big-city authors, and the profits decreased last year. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

First of all, no evidence show that the financial trouble is caused by author’s maintaining a residence in a big city, there may be other factors. Maybe the sales condition of books written by authors who maintain a residence in big city is better than other authors’ books. Furthermore, we could not deny that there was a literature or economic depression last year which led the profits decrease of the publishers. And another possible reason is that the cost of LPC rapidly increased last year.

Secondly, the editor says that LPC changed their original mission. But we could not know from the argument that whether the main mission of the LPC is the novel publishing or not. Maybe the main mission of the LPC is magazine or autobiography publishing. At this case, the issue of mission changing is unconvincing and we do not care about whose novels would be published, big-city authors or regional small-town authors.

Finally, no evidence shows that financial troubles will soon be solved only by returning only the works of regional small-town authors. There is no sufficient and scientific survey to justify that the works of regional small-town authors are more popular and easier to sell, and the works of big-city authors are not welcomed. Admittedly we could find the evidence, but the financial troubles are complicated to solve immediately.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidences concerning the main reason of the financial troubles, and to justify the solving way is sufficient and scientific.

rubenUID: 2163558

FYI

In this argument, the editor recommends the president of the Liber Publishing Company (LPC) that they should[recommends that the Liber Publishing Company (LPC) should] return to publish only the works of regional small-town author in order to solve the financial troubles. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that the last year LPC moved away its original way to publish the works of big-city authors, and the profits decreased last year[原文没有明确提到这一情况，而只是说“Liber is now in serious financial trouble”]. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

First of all, no evidence shows that the financial trouble is caused by author’s maintaining [the publish of novels whose authors maintain][trouble不是由author或作者保有某种住宅引起的，而是由出版这些作者的书引起的]a residence in a big city, there may be other factors. Maybe the sales condition of books written by authors who maintain a residence in big city is better than other authors’ books. Furthermore, we could not deny that there was a literature or economic depression last year which led the profits decrease of the publishers.[We could not deny the possibility that although the sale of books written by authors who maintain a residence in big city was better than other authors’ books, there was a literature or economic depression last year which led the profits decrease.] And another possible reason is that the cost of LPC rapidly increased last year. [建议加一句来说明increased cost如何导致了financial trouble]

Secondly, the editor says that LPC changed their original mission. But we could not know from the argument that whether the main mission of the LPC is the novel publishing or not. Maybe the main mission of the LPC is magazine or autobiography publishing. At this case, the issue of mission changing is unconvincing and we do not care about whose novels would be published, big-city authors or regional small-town authors.[从英文上看，你是想表达这个意思吗？：虽然original mission改变了，但novels并非主营业务；财政危机是由其主营业务下滑导致][或者从提纲上看，你想直接驳original mission的改变，认为并没有改变？如果是这样的话，我觉得“original mission改变”(原文第一段)属于“基本事实”，不建议直接驳]

Finally, no evidence shows that financial troubles will soon be solved only by returning only the works of regional small-town authors. There is no sufficient and scientific survey to justify that the works of regional small-town authors are more popular and easier to sell, and the works of big-city authors are not welcomed. Admittedly we could find the evidence, but the financial troubles are complicated to solve immediately.[建议加一句表明不能solve immediately的原因]

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidences concerning the main reason of the financial troubles, and to justify the solving way is sufficient and scientific.

小结：结构没什么大问题，只是驳论的时候多是点到为止，建议可以再深入展开一下。
加油！～

[ 本帖最后由 ruben 于 2008-3-30 13:21 编辑 ]