argument233,第一次，求猛拍

pansujingUID：2609346

     The this argument , the arguer concludes that we should employ the Appian Roadways to build the access roads of our new shopping malls rathert than the McAdam Road Builder .To substantiated the argument, the arguer cites that the Route 101 which was builded by the McAdam Road builder two years ago is full of the dangerous potholes .while the Route 66 which was constructed by the Appian Roadwys four years ago is in good conditions.In addition ,the arguer points that the Appian Roadways has bought a new state-of-art Paving machinery and employ a new manger. However. the argument is fraught with several flaws.
    The major problem with the argument is that the arguer commits a flase analog between the Route 101 and the Route 66. It is entirely possible that weather in the two place of the two route is seriously different,the weather in Route 101 is so terrible that it undermined the Route heavily,while the weather in Route 66 is very mild which has little influence to the Route. Or parhaps the traffic in Route 101 is more crowd than the Route 66,which would do harm to the route as well as the weathe. If either of two assumptioms becone true, it would undermined the argument's conclusion.
    Even if the above discussed is not true ,The argument points that the new and the manege would enhence the quality of The Appian
Roadways is open to doubt. It is possible that the Appian Roadways foemer maneger thinks the Appian roadways is not a good company so he leaves it , so the company must hire another manager.Maybe the Appian Roadways is short of the mechinery former time because of the poor quaity or the machinary which used former time is broken , which is not enhancing two quailty of company.without rule out other possible factors , the arguer can not convince us that the Appian Roadways is better than the McAdm Road Builder.
    Finally , even if the appian Roadways is better than the MaAdam Road Builder in the building of the Public route ,the arguer extents it to building of the access roads of the shopping malls is unreasonable.Parhaps the McAdam Road builder is more successful in building the small route than the Appian .It is also probably that both two can not build the small route. Therefore, it is premature to conclude that it's better to employ the Appian Roadways to constuct the small route.
    In sum , the argument is unconvincing to us as it stands. To stengthen the argument , the arguer should provide t more persuasive evidencen to suppot that the Appian Roadways is better than McAdam Road builder. What's more ,we should know why the Appian Roadway bought new machinery and hired new manager and both two companies whether have the experience to build the route which leads to the shopping mall.

magiccolinUID：2619731

Thethis argument , the arguer concludes that we should employ the Appian Roadwaysto build the access roads of our new shopping malls rathert than the McAdamRoad Builder .To substantiated the argument, the arguer cites that the Route101 which was builded by the McAdam Road builder two years ago is full of thedangerous potholes ,while the Route 66 which was constructed by the AppianRoadwys four years ago is in good conditions. In addition ,the arguer pointsthat the Appian Roadways has bought a new state-of-art Paving machinery andemploy a new manger. However. the argument is fraught with several flaws.
    Themajor problem with the argument is that the arguer commits a flase analogybetween the Route 101 and the Route 66. [url=]It is entirely possible that weather in the twoplace of the two route is seriously different,the weather in Route 101 is soterrible that it undermined the Route heavily,while the weather in Route 66 isvery mild which has little influence to the Route.[/url][C1]
Or parhaps the traffic in Route101 is more crowd than that in the Route 66,which would do harm to the route aswell as the weather. [url=]Ifeither of two assumptions become true, it would undermined the argument'sconclusion.[/url]
[C2]
    Even if the abovediscussed were proved wrong ,The argument points that[url=]the new and the manege[/url][C3]
would enhence the quality ofThe Appian
Roadways is open to doubt. It is possible that the Appian Roadways foemermaneger thinks the Appian roadways is not a good company so he leaves it , sothe company must hire another manager.Maybe the Appian Roadways is short of themechinery former time because of the poor quaity or the machinary which usedformer time is broken , which is not enhancing two quality of company withoutrule out other possible factors , the arguer can not convince us that theAppian Roadways is better than the McAdm Road Builder.
   Finally , even if the appian Roadways is better than the MaAdam Road Builder inthe building of the Public route ,the arguer extents it to building of theaccess roads of the shopping malls is unreasonable. Parhaps the McAdam Roadbuilder is more successful in building the small route than the Appian .It isalso probably that both two can not build the small route. Therefore, it ispremature to conclude that it's better to employ the Appian Roadways toconstuct the small route.
    Insum , the argument is unconvincing to us as it stands. To stengthen theargument , the arguer should provide
more persuasive evidence to support that theAppian Roadways is better than McAdam  Road builder. What's more ,we should know why theAppian Roadway bought new machinery and hired new manager and both twocompanies whether have the experience to build the route which leads to theshopping mall. （这句好长）

[C1]破句。 应该用逗号，或者假设



[C2]有点不对



[C3]有问题