=七月流火=小组第1次小组作业 argu112 by maggiegu1019

maggiegu1019UID: 2683879

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: 491
TIME: 00:35:00
DATE: 2009-8-19 12:59:37

The argument advocates that in order to reduce the account of flight delay, new runways should be built to increase the capacity with filling in 900 acres of bays. To justify this claim, the promise, that they will fund the restoration of 100 acres of wetlands which was damaged for industrialization in areas of the bay only if the proposal of building new runways is admitted, is cited. To strength the proposal, the arguer said that the wetlands restoration part of the plan can guarantee the bay's environment instead of hurt. The argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted.

Firstly, the argument commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Only some vague statistical figures and assumptions of the arguer show in the argument. How can we draw a conclusion that to build new runways of course will contribute to the reduction of flights delays? Besides, how can we consider the loss of filling 900 acres of the bay can be complemented by restoration of 1000 acres of the wetlands? There may exists many possibilities should be taking into account, such as the 900 may exert unrelenting effect in the natural food chain, when it is damaged ,there will run a risk of messing up.

Secondly, the insufficient evidence provided can not lend a solid validate to the argument. No specific statistical figures were presented about how many flight delays occur per day. The word ' notorious ' is too vague and subjective. Somebody who pursues perfect may consider only one delay is unforgivable, while others may tolerate ten or more. In addition, there provide
no specific evidence to support that the restoration of 1000 acres of wetlands which was damaged for industrialization in areas of the bay is more significant than the 900 acres of the bay. Perhaps the 900 acres play a central role in the natural balance and food chain supplement of the bay. And the 900 acres of bay may the habitat of hundreds of invaluable birds or animals, without the bay now they lived, the destiny of them will be unimaginable.

Thirdly, the argument rests on a gratuitous casual relationship. There exists no direct relationship between the flight delays and building new runways. Building new runways may not be a proper channel to reduce the flight delays. There may exists many other factors should not be omitted and taken into account, for instance, the worse climate, the old-fashioned airplane ,the ineffective of faculty
by lacking if moral. And all these factors of course can not be solved by building new runways, while by providing more accurate forecast, rearranging time table, importing more effective and efficient airplane and make all the faculty to participate a training plan to boost their morale.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, more evidence about the restoration of part wetland will guarantee a better environment without hurting the eco-system, and the delay of fight is caused by lacking of runways should be present.

KiKi~淇水滺滺UID: 2679824

占~~maggie的我预订改了。。。

zx15328UID: 2678014

9号好像轮空了，呵呵，上课前帮你拍下，这是我的一点建议：



The argument advocates that in order to reduce the account of flight delay, new runways should be built to increase the capacity with filling in 900 acres of bays.(in order to 引导的短语放到句子后会不会好些呢？) To justify this claim, the promise, that they will fund the restoration of 100 acres of wetlands which was damaged for industrialization in areas of the bay only if the proposal of building new runways is admitted, is cited. To strength the proposal, （2个不定式读起来有点罗嗦，建议和上面的to justify…区别一下，同义变换）the arguer said
（时态和后面的从句不一致）that the wetlands restoration part of the plan can guarantee the bay's environment instead of hurt. The argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted.

Firstly, the argument commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Only some vague statistical figures and assumptions of the arguer show in the argument. How can we
（是作者give a conclusion,不是我们）draw a conclusion that to build new runways of course will contribute to the reduction of flights delays? Besides, how can we consider the loss of filling 900 acres of the bay can be complemented by restoration of 1000 acres of the wetlands? There may exists many possibilities should be taking into account, such as the 900 may exert unrelenting effect in the natural food chain, when it is damaged ,there will run a risk of messing up（there be 结构？）.（这段应该深入分析一下，2个疑问句以后，给出理由的句子太少）

Secondly, the insufficient evidence provided can not lend a solid validate to the argument. No specific statistical figures were presented about how many flight delays occur per day. The word ' notorious ' is too vague and subjective. Somebody who pursues perfect may consider only one delay is unforgivable, while others may tolerate ten or more. In addition, there provide
no specific evidence to support that the restoration of 1000 acres of wetlands which was damaged for industrialization in areas of the bay is more significant than the 900 acres of the bay. Perhaps the 900 acres play a central role in the natural balance and food chain supplement of the bay. And the 900 acres of bay（跟上句话并成一句，更好点感觉） may the habitat of hundreds of invaluable birds or animals, without the bay now they lived, the destiny of them will be unimaginable.（这段写的挺深刻的，有些观点我都没想到）

Thirdly, the argument rests on a gratuitous casual relationship. There exists no direct relationship between the flight delays and building new runways. Building new runways may not be a proper channel to reduce the flight delays. There may exists many other factors should not be omitted and taken into account, for instance, the worse climate, the old-fashioned airplane ,the ineffective of faculty
by lacking if(of) moral. And all these factors of course can not be solved by building new runways, while by providing more accurate forecast, rearranging time table, importing more effective and efficient airplane and make all the faculty to participate a training plan to boost their morale.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, more evidence about the restoration of part wetland will guarantee a better environment without hurting the eco-system, and (about)the delay of fight is caused by lacking of runways should be present.


你的观点很不错，找出的错误基本都分析的很到位（除了第一个firstly，建议再扩展一下）
思路清晰，总体结构不错，建议将自己最拿手的一段或二段话放前面说（新东方老师说的，说老美的思维比较喜欢开门见山，开头段观点深刻，会给他们留下好印象的）

部分语言建议再斟酌一下，呵呵，感觉你的分析比我有条理，加油！

zx15328UID: 2678014

有空帮我也拍下吧，找不到人组了，我会在上课前把issue补上的

maggiegu1019UID: 2683879

4# zx15328

说的有道理，第一段是我用来凑数的，以后凑数的都往后放，我觉得一般写三段在BODY 部分比较好~~没敢太展开，我总觉得ARGU时间短