=七月流火=小组第1次小组作业 by zx15328

zx15328UID: 2678014

In this argument,the arguer puts forward the proposal that new runways to increase capacity should be built concerning the flight delaying problem,while 900 acres of the bay would be filled. To substantiatethe conclusion,the arguer reasons that the airport will restoration of wetlands in area of th bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization.However, a ponderation of the argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

The arguer’ s conclusions about building new runways depend on gratutions assumption that flight delays in the airport is due to the shortage of capacity.However, it is entirely possible that the airport suffer from miserable weather frequently ,which has a great influence on fligts arriving.As the airport is on a bay , airplanes sometimes have to wait for a appropriate condition in a rainy or foggy weather.Moreover,the low level of efficiency which might cause the delaysalso is a factor that could not be neglected.If so ,it is unfair to conclude that this plan should be adopted ,for is necessary to reduce the flght delays.

Even claiming that 1000 acres of wetlangd previously damaged by industrialization will restore,the arguer fails to provide a convincing evidence that the bay’ s environment will be ameliorated.Simply judge from restoration of wetland,It could not be comfirmed that new runways which may bring with more filghts won’t be haimful to ecological environment.Manywildlife of the bay will lost habitat result from filling in the bay ,so the damage to eco-system
could not be avoid by fund.Thus with out accounting for all the possible harmless,the arguer’ s contention that the bay’ s environment will actually be helped is unjustified

In addition,though the airport promise that it will fund the restoration, perhaps,lots of wet lands have been destroyed so serious that could not be come back as they have done before.If so, it is not a problem that can be solved by investment any more,the fund also become ineffective.

In sum, the argument is unpersuative as it stands.To strengthen it ,the arguer must show that the flight delays are completely due to limited capacity.In order to valuate the argument,we need more information about effects of filling in the bay, and about all the possible changes of environment after performing the plan .

KiKi~淇水滺滺UID: 2679824

完了，大家全乱了，那我改你的Argu吧~~

knx1029UID: 2609556

In this argument,the arguer puts forward the proposal that new runways to increase capacity(应该改成“to increase capacity, new runways....”) should be built concerning the flight delaying problem,while 900 acres of the bay would be filled. To substantiatethe conclusion,the arguer reasons (reason指的是“推断”，而这里应该只算是引用或者说明。所以要改成“claim”一类的词比较好。)that the airport will (添加fund the ..)restoration of wetlands in area of th bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization.However, a ponderation of the argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

The arguer’ s conclusions about building new runways depend on gratutions assumption that flight delays in the airport is due to the shortage of capacity.However, it is entirely possible that the airport suffers from miserable weather frequently ,which has a great influence on fligts arriving.As the airport is on a bay , airplanes sometimes have to wait for a appropriate condition in a rainy or foggy weather.Moreover,the low level of efficiency which might cause the delays also is (Is also ?)a factor that could not be neglected.If so ,it is unfair to conclude that this plan should be adopted ,for itis necessary to reduce the flght delays.

Even claiming that 1000 acres of wetlangd previously damaged by industrialization will restore,the arguer fails to provide a convincing evidence that the bay’ s environment will be ameliorated.Simply judge from restoration of wetland,It could not be comfirmed that new runways which may bring with more filghts won’t be haimful to ecological environment.Manywildlife(widelives) of the bay will lost habitat result from filling in the bay (前后主语不一致。或者说，如果你要用这样的句型，Simply judged from restoration，后面再接以bay作为主语的句子。),so the damage to eco-system
could not be avoid by fund.Thus with out(Without) accounting for all the possible harmless,(我想你要说的是所有可能的危害，但是harmless是无害的意思。应该直接说possible harmful effect)the arguer’ s contention that the bay’ s environment will actually be helped is unjustified

In addition,though the airport promise that it will fund the restoration, perhaps,lots of wet lands have been destroyed so serious that could not be come back as they have done before(come back to what they have been before).If so, it is not a problem that can be solved by investment any more,the fund also become ineffective.

In sum, the argument is unpersuative as it stands.To strengthen it ,the arguer must show that the flight delays are completely due to limited capacity.In order to valuate (evaluate)the argument,we need more information about effects of filling in the bay, and about all the possible changes of environment after performing(Carrying out) the plan .


我主要是挑了些语法错误....

zx15328UID: 2678014

恩，谢谢啦，语言方面确实有不少问题，期待再拍拍逻辑和结构~