【Try Best】第一小组 ARGUMENT112 by小红莓

小红莓UID: 2641349

TOPIC: ARGUMENT112 - The following proposal was raised at a meeting of the Franklin City Council.

"Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, is notorious for flight delays. The airport management wants to build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. The Bay Coalition organization objects that filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. But the airport says that if it is permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. This plan should be adopted, for it is necessary to reduce the flight delays, and the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt."
WORDS: 404
TIME: 00:55:09
DATE: 2009-7-5 19:58:41

In this proposal, the author recommends that the plan, which claims that new runways should be built to increase capacity of Franklin Airport, should be adopted. To support this assertion, the author point out that even if this filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife, the new runways are necessary to the airport. The author also claims that the airport would fund the restoration of wetlands. I find this argument logically unconvincing in three critical aspects.

To begin with, the argument relies on the assumption that new runways would decrease the flight delays. Actually, maybe there are some other reasons that cause flight delays, such as the management of the airport. And, as the airport in on a bay, it's more likely that the flight is influenced by the weather rather than the number of runways. Without evidences to substantiate the assumption and show that the flight delays were cause by the capability of airport, one cannot reasonably conclude that building new runways is the only way to decrease flight delays.

Secondly, even though the airport will fund the restoration of wetlands in areas of the bay that has previously been damaged by industrialization, the author fails to prove that restoration would totally make up the devastation to wildlife. Building new runways would destroy more natural earth and as a consequence despoil the homeland of wildlife. There is no statistics that shows the destruction would be made up by following funding. Perhaps the problem is not so simple that can be solved by money, but is irreversible and causes the extinction of many species. Lacking evidence that the environmental problems could be solved by the restoration, the argument is indefensible.

Thirdly, the author fails to take many other results that could be caused by the industrialization of the new runways into account. For example, as the airport is built on a bay and further construction would disrupt tidal patterns, it's possibly that the weather conditions of the bay would be influenced largely and more flights be delayed as a result.

In sum, the argument has not convinced me that new runways are necessary to built. To strengthen the argument the author must assure me that that building new runways is the only way to decrease flight delays and environmental problems could be solved by the restoration. The author must also rule out other result that may caused by the industrialization.


交晚了点，最近都没怎么写作文，所以写起来有点困难，不好意思

nlhustUID: 2404239

In this proposal, the author recommends that the plan, which claimsthat new runways should be built to increase capacity of FranklinAirport, should be adopted. To support this assertion, the author pointout that even if this filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patternsand harm wildlife, the new runways are necessary to the airport. Theauthor also claims that the airport would fund the restoration ofwetlands. I find this argument logically unconvincing in three criticalaspects.

个人觉得第一段里对Argument的里的推理逻辑叙述的不是很清楚，而且对plan的内容叙述也不完整。the restoration of wetlands 和环境问题的关系。在Argument中组委会建议采纳plan的一部分原因是觉得restoration会改善环境而且抵消填埋海湾所带来的负面影响，这一点明确指出而不是仅仅说一句the author claims 。。。wetlands是不是会好些呢？反正就是觉得开头写的有点敷衍。

To begin with, the argument relies on the assumption that new runwayswould decrease the flight delays. Actually, maybe there are some otherreasons that cause flight delays, such as the management of theairport. And, as the airport in on a bay, it's more likely that theflight is influenced by the weather rather than the number of runways.Without evidences to substantiate the assumption and show that theflight delays were cause by the capability of airport, one cannotreasonably conclude that building new runways is the only way todecrease flight delays.

列举了两个它因，第一个：management。这个没有展开，因此看起来不太令人信服。是管理制度的问题，还是人员问题？毕竟是一个大机场，如果是因为management导致经常出现飞机晚点现象的话，那当地的管理政策也太差了吧，但政策方面应该是通用的吧，似乎不会造成这么大影响，而人员的话，怎么至于这么久都没换呢？我当时想写这个，但就是因为没找到一种合理的展开方式，就放弃了这一点。我觉得你要写的话还是细化点好。否者有lacing of development之嫌。后面weather的它因也有同样的问题，但比起前面一个，这个还比较容易让人认同。

Secondly, even though the airport will fund the restoration of wetlandsin areas of the bay that has previously been damaged byindustrialization, the author fails to prove that restoration wouldtotally make up（是掩饰的意思？不太清楚用在这里是否贴切。） the devastation to wildlife. Building new runways woulddestroy more natural earth and as a consequence despoil the homeland ofwildlife. There is no statistics that shows the destruction would bemade up by following funding (有点表意不清，而且又是make up？). Perhaps the problem is not so simple thatcan be solved by money, but is irreversible and causes the extinctionof many species. Lacking evidence that the environmental problems couldbe solved by the restoration, the argument is indefensible.

这个点找的没错，但是感觉论证只是停留在表层,绕着一个意思,就是no evidence shows that the problems can be solved by the restoration重复说了好几次。虽说换了几种不同的说法。。。真正新鲜并且深入的内容的就一句：Perhaps the problem is not so simple thatcan be solved by money（而且我觉得这里Argument中也没说仅是money的问题，毕竟有了fund还是可以做很多事的）, but is irreversible and causes the extinctionof many species.


Thirdly, the author fails to take many other results that could becaused by the industrialization of the new runways into account. Forexample, as the airport is built on a bay and further  construction would disrupt tidal patterns, it's possibly that the weather conditions of the bay would be influenced largely and more flights be delayed as aresult.

这一段放在这里显得整体的逻辑有些混乱。第一句TS表一不是很清晰，industrialization of the new runways？这里用industrialization感觉不恰当。后面展开的论述中weather condition那句可以整合到第二段，属于建了更多的跑道也不一定会使情况改善；；而further construction的这一句其实是可以在第三段里写出来的。

In sum, the argument has not convinced（用cannot是不是会更好些?） me that new runways are necessary to built. To strengthen the argument the author must assure me that that building new runways is the only way to decrease flight delays and environmental problems could be solved by the restoration. The author must also rule out other result that may caused by the industrialization.

感觉整篇文章在demonstrate control of language这方面做得还不错，语法用词上感觉没什么大错误。但是在clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully and effectively supports the main points of the critique上做得不够好， 对argument的驳斥不够充分，建议去掉第三点（这个点确实有些让人摸不着头脑），然后将前面两个点充分展开论述。

cababoUID: 2648869

TOPIC: ARGUMENT112 - The following proposal was raised at a meeting of the Franklin City Council.

"Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, is notorious for flight delays. The airport management wants to build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. The Bay Coalition organization objects that filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. But the airport says that if it is permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. This plan should be adopted, for it is necessary to reduce the flight delays, and the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt."
WORDS: 404
TIME: 00:55:09
DATE: 2009-7-5 19:58:41

In this proposal, the author recommends that the plan, which claims that new runways should be built to increase capacity of Franklin Airport, should be adopted. To support this assertion, the author points out that even if this filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife, the new runways are necessary to the airport. The author also claims that the airport would fund the restoration of wetlands. I find this argument logically unconvincing in (介词不是用on吗？我不太确定）three critical aspects.

To begin with, the argument relies on the assumption that new runways would decrease the flight delays. Actually, maybe there are some other reasons that cause flight delays, such as the management of the airport. And, as the airport in （is)on a bay, it's more likely that the flight is influenced by the weather rather than the number of runways. Without evidences to substantiate the assumption and show that the flight delays were caused by the capability of airport, one cannot reasonably conclude that building new runways is the only way to decrease flight delays.(上面说的都不一定是原因，这里最好说不一定能改善。。貌似直接说不是惟一手段不太合适哦吧）

Secondly, even though the airport will fund the restoration of wetlands in areas of the bay that has previously been damaged by industrialization, the author fails to prove that restoration would totally make up to the devastation to wildlife. Building new runways would destroy more natural earth and as a consequence despoil the homeland of wildlife. There is no statistics that shows the destruction would be made up by following funding. Perhaps the problem is not so simple that it can be solved by money, but is irreversible and causes the extinction of many species. (改成 and many species have been extinct好一点吧。。。细读起来感觉这句话整体不太顺，你觉得呢？）Lacking evidence that the environmental problems could be solved by the restoration, the argument is indefensible.

Thirdly, the author fails to take many other results that could be caused by the industrialization （这个词用得不太合适吧？）of the new runways into account. For example, as the airport is built on a bay and further construction would disrupt tidal patterns, it's possibly （possible) that the weather conditions of the bay would be influenced largely and more flights would be delayed as a result.

In sum, the argument has not convinced me that new runways are necessary to built. (我觉得改成 the plan should be adopted好一点吧？。。）To strengthen the argument the author must assure me that that (delete)building new runways is the only ( a powerful) way to decrease flight delays and environmental problems could be solved by the restoration. The author must also rule out other results that may be caused by the industrialization.