Argument158 【challenge yourself】第一次作业by linyunf

linyunfUID：2405027

The council announces that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a critical health hazard and will not restrict the size of such sites or place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites. I find that the recent study and its analysis which the decision base on do not make sense and can't support the decision at all.

In the first place, the study just examined a total of five sites and 300 people, making the study useless, unless the author presents that the numbers are representative. Maybe there are much more people and garbage sites in the whole state, just consider the word "state". The study has to be done in a larger scale if the council really wants to know the real situation.

In the second place, even if the numbers are representative, the analysis made by the council was wrong. The study's result does indicate that there are correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in those homes though the correlation was not so significant. If we note that the study just covered only 300 people and if there are just 3 people who get rashes, it will make up 1% of the whole people. The council's conclusion is certainly careless and the council is indifferent with the local people's feeling about the garbage sites as we can't find any suggestion that the council has asked the people there in the study. So without getting the views of the local people about the decisions and the rashes that emerge among their neighbor, the decision is questionable.

In the last place, the study has found that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes but the council just ignored the result and quibbled that the correlation didn't exist. So why did the council make the study? Fact is fact. As long as the people living near the largest trash sites had more incidences of the rashes, the council has to place restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.

In sum, the council's study may probably don’t make any sense and the council's analysis was not responsible and indifferent. The decisions made are totally wrong if the study was conducted properly and the result did reflect the situation there.

infant~UID：2242949

~~~~~~~~~~

The council announces that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a critical health hazard and will not restrict the size of such sites or place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites. I find that the recent study and its analysis which the decision base(based) on do not make sense and can't support the decision at all.In the first place, the study just examined a total of five sites and 300 people, making the study useless, unless the author presents that the numbers are representative. Maybe there are much more people and garbage sites in the whole state, just consider the word "state". The study has to(一般都是用must吧。。) be done in a larger scale if the council really wants to know the real situation.(连续两个real。。会不会不太好哇？)

In the second place, even if the numbers are representative, the analysis made by the council was wrong. The study's result does indicate that there are correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in those homes though the correlation was not so significant. If we note that the study just covered only 300 people and if there are just 3 people who get rashes, it will make up 1% of the whole people. The council's conclusion is certainly careless and the council is indifferent with the local people's feeling about the garbage sites as we can't find any suggestion that the council has asked the people there in the study. So without getting the views of the local people about the decisions and the rashes that emerge among their neighbor, the decision is questionable.(这一段的论述我觉得很有道理，也很新颖：)　呵呵)

In the last place, the study has found that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes but the council just ignored the result and quibbled that the correlation didn't exist. So why did the council make the study? Fact is fact. As long as the people living near the largest trash sites had more incidences of the rashes, the council has to place restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.

In sum, the council's study may probably don’t(语法不太对吧) make any sense and the council's analysis was not responsible and indifferent. The decisions made are totally wrong if(unless) the study was conducted properly and the result did reflect the situation there.

总的来说逻辑没什么问题，一些小问题要注意　呵呵～

[ 本帖最后由 infant~ 于 2008-7-24 02:18 编辑 ]

xomaeUID：2468629

The council announces that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a critical health hazard and will not restrict the size of such sites or place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites. I find that the recent study and its analysis which the decision base on do not make sense and can't support the decision at all.

In the first place, the study just examined a total of five sites and 300 people, making the study useless, unless the author presents that the numbers are representative. Maybe there are much more people and garbage sites in the whole state, just consider the word "state". The study has to be done in a larger scale if the council really wants to know the real situation.
In the second place, even if the numbers are representative, the analysis made by the council was wrong. The study's result does indicate that there are correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in those homes though the correlation was not so significant. If we note that the study just covered only 300 people and if there are just 3 people who get rashes, it will make up 1% of the whole people. The council's conclusion is certainly careless and the council is indifferent with the local people's feeling about the garbage sites as we can't find any suggestion that the council has asked the people there in the study.(这句看的不是很明白，主语是X and X’,后面一个as结构修饰的是sites?要表达的意思是“委员会的结论很粗心和委员会对当地群众对垃圾场的感受漠不关心，因为我们没有找到关于委员会告诉群众存在调查的暗示”？如果as修饰sites那么应该翻译为作为，句意不通，如果作为因为，两句话应该用逗号隔开吧 ) So without getting the views of the local people about the decisions and the rashes that emerge among their neighbor, the decision is questionable.

In the last place, the study has found that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes but the council just ignored the result and quibbled that the correlation didn't exist. So why did the council make the study? Fact is fact. As long as the people living near the largest trash sites had more incidences of the rashes, the council has to place restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.
In sum, the council's study may probably don’t make any sense and the council's analysis was not responsible and indifferent. The decisions made are totally wrong if the study was conducted properly and the result did reflect the situation there.

很好很强大~逻辑很严密，整篇文章找不到什么错误