The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state.
Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland.
But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue.
If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields.
There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."
现在看看范文怎么写的:
Body4 (省去之前三段是因为这篇范文开头太罗嗦,前两段在介绍文章,第三段是个引子,第四段才真正是他有力论证的开始)
Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland.
直接说:学校和公园不一样。
Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland.
While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school.
The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community.
What interest do they have in a new school?
It only means higher taxes for them to pay.
They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything.
On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness.
The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone.
In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.
之后这一整段的论述都是围绕公园为什么和学校不一样而展开的,而不是说学校有什么不好。
Body 5
Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park.
换着法的说学校和公园不一样
Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park.
What about children who don't play sports?
Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything.
A playing field is a playing field.
Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports.
There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports.
This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.