ARGUMENT119 求拍

BALLON6UID: 2576833

ARGUMENT119 "Traffic problems here in Waymarsh are obviously reaching record levels. While just three months ago it would take me 15 minutes to get to work, it now takes closer to 25. Waymarsh should follow the example of our neighboring city Gearsville. Last year, Gearsville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work with coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Gearsville have dropped since the policy was implemented, and several friends who live in Gearsville tell me that their trip to work is quicker than it used to be. With the terrible traffic and high pollution in Waymarsh, we must implement a policy similar to Gearsville's."
WORDS: 460
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2009-04-15 16:35:27


The argument above presents a relatively sound case for arguing that if we prefer to solve the problems of terrible traffic and high pollution in Waymarsh, we should consider implementing a policy similar to Gearsville's. Careful examination of these supporting evidence , nevertheless, reveals that it lends little credible support to the
claim.

First of all, as it stands the functions or the concepts of traffic problems in Waymarsh is far too vague to lend meaningful support to the argument. It cannot be concluded only by the longer time taken with the author. It is entirely possible that there is some road condition occur on the way of the author. Besides, a three-month period is such a short time frame that the traffic problems cannot become so bad, the arguer does not provide us enough information on the subject of the traffic condition
has certainly become worse during the last three months.

In addition, the arguer fails to take into account the inherent differences between Gearsville and Waymarsh. Perhaps the same course of action would be ineffective on Waymarsh due to a myriad of differences, such as environmental, genetic and geological differences and disparity in average age, attitude of residents, and the number of cars the residents own and so on. As a result, Gearaville and Waymarsh establish an oversimplified analogy. Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the arguer cannot assume that what resulted in implementing the policy similar to Gearsville's
would bring about the result in Waymarsh.

Moreover, the causal relationship between the pollution levels dropped
and the implementing the policy that rewards people with free gas is unwarranted. No evidence is offered to support this assumption. To establish this relationship, other factors that could bring about this result must be considered and ruled out. For example
the Gearrsville might close some factories which is seriously polluted before and so forth, therefore the policy
can not lend credible support to the decrease of the pollution level in Gearville. When it come to the traffic problems, the arguer fails to consider the specificity of the example.
One example of the arguer's friends is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. In fact unless it can be shown that
the less of the time to go to work is representative of the condition of the whole city.

In summary, this argument has several patent flaws which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, further investigation and analysis are needed. To persuade me that the policy will take effect in Waymarsh, the arguer would need to provide clear evidence that the policy. Furthermore, to better evaluate the arguer's claim we would need more information about the pollution level in Waymarsh and what cause the traffic problem actually.

现在对ARGUMENT还不是很有感觉，比较模板化，语言基础也不好，还有10天就考了，实在不知道怎么办
没办法突破，希望能给些意见。灰常感谢！

irvine666UID: 2575525

ARGUMENT119 "Traffic problems here in Waymarsh are obviously reaching record levels. While just three months ago it would take me 15 minutes to get to work, it now takes closer to 25. Waymarsh should follow the example of our neighboring city Gearsville. Last year, Gearsville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work with coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Gearsville have dropped since the policy was implemented, and several friends who live in Gearsville tell me that their trip to work is quicker than it used to be. With the terrible traffic and high pollution in Waymarsh, we must implement a policy similar to Gearsville's."
WORDS: 460
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2009-04-15 16:35:27


The argument above presents a relatively sound case for arguing that if we prefer to solve the problems of terrible traffic and high pollution in Waymarsh, we should consider implementing a policy similar to Gearsville's. Careful examination of these supporting evidence , nevertheless, reveals that it（前后不一致） lends little credible support to the claim.

First of all, as it stands the functions or the concepts of traffic problems in Waymarsh is far too vague to lend meaningful support to the argument.（这个主题句的主语functions or concepts of traffic problems是啥米？有function of problem这种搭配么，我孤陋寡闻了。） It(it是conclusion吧？你上文根本没提到conclusion,怎么这里直接能用it指代?) cannot be concluded only by the longer time taken with the author. It is entirely possible that there is some road condition（这个又是啥,一些路况？路况怎么能配occur..） occur on the way of the author.（这个possible也有问题，作者明显说的是最近的一种普遍情况而不是特例，因此完全不需要用XXXoccur这种表示突发性特例的他因） Besides, a three-month period is such a short time frame that the traffic problems cannot become so bad(3个月还不够，那多久才够？从常理来看，交通状况恶化一般就是伴随着某些事情突然发生的。而且作者的意思是最近一直很恶化，强调的是情况，而不是时间。), the arguer does not provide us enough information on the subject of the traffic condition（既做前一个动词的宾语，又做后一个动词的主语） has certainly become worse during the last three months. （这句话是典型的2合1语法错误，把两个句子强行揉成了一个，有两个谓语而没有用从句或连词）

In addition, the arguer fails to take into account the inherent differences between Gearsville and Waymarsh(这个主题句还是很清晰的). Perhaps the same course of action would be ineffective on Waymarsh due to a myriad of differences, such as environmental, genetic and geological differences and disparity in average age, attitude of residents, and the number of cars the residents own and so on.（这里你泛泛的举了一些可能影响到action结果的原因，象geological, attitude, number of cars这些都比较好理解它们对ineffective的支持；但是environmental, genetic,age我实在是搞不懂它们到底如何支持ineffective,我估计ETS那些逻辑思维单纯的考官更不会懂，你应当后面解释下为什么你会觉得environmental, genetic,age能够支持你的ineffective。） As a result, Gearaville and Waymarsh establish an oversimplified analogy. Without accounting for（这个词的意思是解释，用在这里不恰当） these and other possible dissimilarities, the arguer cannot assume that what resulted in implementing the policy similar to Gearsville's would bring about the result（the same result） in Waymarsh.

Moreover, the causal relationship（这个段落应该是放在前面的，从正常的逻辑方向考虑，是因为G的政策导致了pollution dropped(success)，进一步（moreover）W才考虑同样采纳它，所以你应当先批政策不一定成功，再让步即使可以成功，W也不应该照搬，云云..） between the pollution levels dropped and the implementing the policy that rewards people with free gas（这里又是强行揉合两个句子...你的语感和从句的语法实在是需要加强） is unwarranted. No evidence is offered to support this assumption.(大家都知道是no evidence,但是你不能只靠no evidence来驳倒作者的论断。所以我一直认为这种类似的话就是典型的模板型废话(实际上，模板里面的话很多都是废话，因为只有废话才具有通用性，才能在多个A里面到处搬用。就像这个句子一样，随便哪个A里面的哪个段落都能用。)，多它不多，少它不少，唯一的作用就是拿来凑字数。) To establish this relationship, other factors that could bring about this result must be considered and ruled out. For example the Gearrsville might close some factories which is seriously polluted before and so forth, therefore the policy can not lend credible support to the decrease of the pollution level in Gearville.(这个可能性还是在理的) When it come to the traffic problems（这里又不对了，你的TS说的很明确，是讨论causal relationship between the pollution levels dropped and policies的，所以你这一段应当围绕你中心句的内容 -- pollution levels和policies的关系 -- 来批，而不该讲到一半突然转到traffic problems） the arguer fails to consider the specificity of the example. One example of the arguer's friends is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. In fact unless it can be shown that the less of the time to go to work is representative of the condition of the whole city. （从when it comes to...开始，后面的话虽然能够make sense,但是整个内容是和你的段落内容歪掉的）

In summary, this argument has several patent flaws which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, further investigation and analysis are needed. To persuade me that the policy will take effect in Waymarsh, the arguer would need to provide clear evidence that the policy. Furthermore, to better evaluate the arguer's claim we would need more information about the pollution level in Waymarsh and what cause the traffic problem actually.（结尾不改，个人习惯～）