超越小组第三次作业Augument30

yk19840405UID: 2463374

Argument 30
According to information recently reported in the Eliottown Gazette, the number of people who travel to Eliottown has increased significantly over the past several years. So far this year over 100,000 people have arrived on flights to Eliottown's airport, compared with only 80,000 last year and 40,000 the year before. Eliottown's train station has received more than 50,000 passengers this year, compared with less than 40,000 last year and 20,000 the year before. Clearly tourism in Eliottown has been increasing, thanks to the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art that opened last year. Therefore, the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly.

In this argument, the author recommends that the funding for the Central Park and Museum of Modern Art should be increased significantly to increase the tourism in Eliottown. To support this conclusion, the arguer points out that the number of people who travel to Eliottown by air and by train has increased significantly over the past several years. He reasons that the increasing tourism in Eliottown is due to the new opened Central Park and Museum of Modern Art last year. The argument is logically flawed in several critical aspects.

To begin with,the survey on which this argument is based is problematic. As known, the ways people travel to some place are not only limited to by flight or by train, there are other vehicles like car or ship. So the data provided in the survey couldn’t convincingly support the claim that the total number who travel to Eliottown has increased.

Moreover, even if the author could prove that the number of people travel to the city is really increasing, there is no evidence to show that all this increasing people are tourist, say nothing of  Central Park or Museum of Modern Art. It is really possible that the business in Eliottown has developed stupendously. Maybe there has been a international stock exchange center built in Eliottown over the past years or there are some show centers for fashionable dress shown, and so on. Unless exclude all this alternatives, it is unconvincing to say that increasing people who traveled to Eliottown are for Central Park and Museum of Modern Art.

Furthermore, even if I were to concede that the park and museum are appealing to tourist so as to lead the increasing people here, there is absolutely no evidence to show that they need more funding in the next few years. As described in the argument, the park and museum are new opened last year, there will be no need for rebuilding or repairing. In the limiting finance, significantly increasing money on the new park and museum is obviously no better than spending them on the more urgent things.

To sum up, the recommendation relies on a series of unwarranted assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands To bolster the recommendation, the arguer must provide persuative evidence that it is the park and museum who appealed more and more people traveling to Eliottown. To better access the recommendation, we also have to survey that whether the new park and museum need more money in the next few years.

啊拉UID: 2527432

Argument 30According to information recently reported in the Eliottown Gazette, the number of people who travel to Eliottown has increased significantly over the past several years. So far this year over 100,000 people have arrived on flights to Eliottown's airport, compared with only 80,000 last year and 40,000 the year before. Eliottown's train station has received more than 50,000 passengers this year, compared with less than 40,000 last year and 20,000 the year before. Clearly tourism in Eliottown has been increasing, thanks to the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art that opened last year. Therefore, the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly.

In this argument, the author recommends that the funding for the Central Park and Museum of Modern Art should be increased significantly to increase the tourism in Eliottown.(为什么要增加钱这个可以单独讨论,作者可没有说加钱是为了增加游客量哦~当然这样提出来是很好的~我都没想到呢=.=) To support this conclusion, the arguer points out that the number of people who travel to Eliottown by air and by train has increased significantly over the past several years. He reasons that the increasing tourism in Eliottown is due to the new opened Central Park and Museum of Modern Art last year. The argument is logically flawed in several critical aspects.

To begin with,the survey on which this argument is based is problematic. As known, the ways people travel to some place are not only limited to by flight or by train, there are other vehicles like car or ship. So the data provided in the survey couldn’t convincingly support the claim that the total number who travel to Eliottown has increased.(…和猴子一样…质疑这个survey…是为了什么呢?最好能和作者的结论联系起来,并说明这个调查可能会影响到作者结论的可信度)

Moreover, even if the author could prove that the number of people travel to the city is really increasing, there is no evidence to show that all this increasing people are tourist, say nothing of  (这里连接最好改,短语之后直接跟两个名词会让人误以为更不用说这两个地方了,而原来的意思应该是更不是为这两个地方而来)Central Park or Museum of Modern Art. It is really possible that the business in Eliottown has developed stupendously. Maybe there has been a international stock exchange center built in Eliottown over the past years or there are some show centers for fashionable dress shown, and so on. Unless exclude all this alternatives, it is unconvincing to say that increasing people who traveled to Eliottown are for (这里连接也要注意,要么把who去掉改为people traveled to E for…要么把for换掉,不然表述引起误解) Central Park and Museum of Modern Art.

Furthermore, even if I were to concede that the park and museum are appealing to tourist so as to lead the increasing people here, there is absolutely no evidence to show that they need more funding in the next few years. As described in the argument, the park and museum are new opened last year, there will be no need for rebuilding or repairing. In the limiting finance, significantly increasing money on the new park and museum is obviously no better than spending them on the more urgent things.(表述很不错..)

To sum up, the recommendation relies on a series of unwarranted assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands To bolster the recommendation, the arguer must provide persuative evidence that it is the park and museum who appealed more and more people traveling to Eliottown. To better access the recommendation, we also have to survey that whether the new park and museum need more money in the next few years.

结尾不用这么详细,感觉有点像开头了..

总的来说写得不错,思维可以再开阔一些,至于怎么开阔…我也不知道…=.=