Argument177

kingwyf87UID: 2457409

177. The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.

"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club—a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues—should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."



In this argument, in the local newspaper, the author suggests that the membership in Oak City's Civic Club, which should continue restricted to the local people. To strength his advises the arguer point out that the only local citizen could understand the business and the politics of the city and improve the city company’s profits. The author also sites a survey to indicate that the nonresidents are unlikely to disappoint with such policy. The argument depends on quite a few unconfirmed assumptions, which render it unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer fails to assume that the only local people who could understand the business and politics of the city and improve the city company’s profits. It is entirely possible that most citizens work in other city and they do not care about their taxes. Whereas, the people, who are nonresidents, work in the big companies or government , clearly understand the business or politics and apply themselves to improve the city’s economy. Lacking such evidence the arguer cannot convince me about his suggestion.

Yet another problem with the argument is that the author fails to think the situation which indicates in theElm City's survey, is quietly happened in the Oak City's. Because of lacking nonresidents in the Elm City's it is possible that the policy in there would not ensure the similar situation in the Oak City's, where there are numbers of nonresidents. Thus, due to the sort of factor mentioned above the arguer’s conclusion cannot justices as it stands.

Even the nonresidents in the two cities are similar; the survey, in the Elm City, is still open to doubt. The author fails to indicate that the nonresidents, who are involved in the study, are satisfied with such policy. It is quietly possible that the most nonresidents, who live in Elm City and do not join the Civic Club, are not happy about the policy. Yet the argument contains no evidence to eliminate this possibility , the arguer’s conclusion on the basis on the improbability survey.

To sum up, the suggestion, which is made by the author who has disregarded or chosen to ignore several aspects of his conclusion, is on the basis of the scant credibility. To better bolster the reliability of the arguer’s conclusion, I would need more information about the citizen in Oak City's. I would also need the evidence about the survey is creditable, in order to revaluate the author’s recommendation more appropriate.


[ 本帖最后由 kingwyf87 于 2008-4-10 22:24 编辑 ]

yzl_1988UID: 2372248

In this argument, in the local newspaper, the author suggests that the membership in Oak City's Civic Club, which should continue restricted to the local people. To strength his advises, the arguer point out that only the local citizen could understand the business and the politics of the city and improve the city company’s profits. The author also sites a survey to indicate that the nonresidents are unlikely to disappoint with such policy. The argument depends on quite a few unconfirmed assumptions, which render it unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer fails to assume that the only local people who could understand the business and politics of the city and improve the city company’s profits.有语病[变成who can] It is entirely possible that most citizens work in other city and they do not care about their taxes.[这个他因是不是有点无理头？是不是应该在only上下文章？]Whereas, the people, who are nonresidents, work in the big companies or government , clearly understand the business or politics and apply themselves to improve the city’s economy. Lacking such evidence the arguer cannot convince me about his suggestion.

汗，原来你在only上下文章了啊。不过，前一个他因还是无理头，能去就去了。而且也没有说文章一上来就开始列他因的。

Yet another problem with the argument is that the author fails to think the situation which indicates in the Elm City's survey, is quietly happened in the Oak City's.[看并不太明白，再写清楚一点。The arguer fails to convince us that the situation in Elm City is just the same in Oak City.我这样说不知道是不是符合你的原意。] Because of lacking nonresidents in the Elm City's it is possible that the policy in there would not ensure the similar situation in the Oak City's, where there are numbers of nonresidents.[拗口]Thus, due to the sort of factor mentioned above the arguer’s conclusion cannot justices as it stands.

怎么还是他因？用一点别的方法。找一点别的错误。

Even the nonresidents in the two cities are similar; the survey, in the Elm City, is still open to doubt. The author fails to indicate that the nonresidents, who are involved in the study, are [我更喜欢will be] satisfied with such policy. It is quietly possible that the most nonresidents, who live in Elm City and do not join the Civic Club, are not happy about the policy. Yet the argument contains no evidence to eliminate this possibility, the arguer’s conclusion on the basis on the improbability survey.

这段还算可以吧。

To sum up, the suggestion, which is made by the author who has disregarded or chosen to ignore several aspects of his conclusion, is on the basis of the scant credibility. To better bolster the reliability of the arguer’s conclusion, I would need more information about the citizen in Oak City's. I would also need the evidence about the survey is creditable, in order to revaluate the author’s recommendation more appropriate.         

Argument不是太难，但是要把错误找好，最好是硬伤。也别全用列举他因法，列举他因法是属于下策，能证明作者直接错了最好。而且列举他因列的不要太离谱。我觉得你第一个列的就好离谱。比如，twenty-five作者没说总数，就是比较好的点。还有only residents pay city taxes你就要怀疑是这样么？商人，职工不要交税的么？收入不要交税的么？这些都比你的第一个他因要好得多。再有，only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city，你还是可以怀疑，nonresidents就一无是处了么？是不是有比residents优秀的地方呢？所以，你应该上网看看别人的文章。至少能拓宽一下思路。
加油，我觉得你只要思路打开了应该没有问题。
还有，你应该是新手吧，帖子都成那种样子了也不编辑下。有大有小的，牛人哪天心情好了想改作文了，看到你的帖子恐怕也就放过去了。
就这些，我的一件可能有不到之处，请批判性接受。这也是AW对我们的要求，找出不足、写出完美。

[ 本帖最后由 yzl_1988 于 2008-4-14 16:27 编辑 ]

kingwyf87UID: 2457409

谢谢 细心修改 祝 考试成功！