=七月流火=小组第1次小组作业 argu112 by huaishi100

huaishi100UID: 2621245

Argument
模板上：
大概思路：1“臭名昭著”不代表是晚点次数多 可能是晚点时间长.
2.就算是晚点次数多耶并不一定是缺少跑道引起的

3. 重整海湾因工业化而破坏的湿地不会减少因扰乱潮汐规律对生物造成的破坏
         
In this argument, the arguer recommends that by filling in 900acres of the bay to build new runways to increase capacity. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer point out that the reason of flight delays is lack of runways to increase capacity. In addition, the arguer assumes that the airport will fund the restoration of 1,000acres of wetlands that have previously been damaged by industrialization .As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

In the first place, the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that the notorious for flight delay is the numbers of delay. In fact, this is not necessarily the case. For example, it is most likely that the delay time is too long to tolerate for passengers. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

In the second place, the arguer assumes that short of runaways leads to the flight delays .However, there may be other factors that could have caused flight delays. Such as the weather, the loosen discipline of aviator and an careless timetable. So without ruling out such alternative explanations the arguer can not convince me that the lack of runaways necessarily results in the flight delays.

Finally, the arguer assumes that the airport will fund the restoration of wetlands that have previously been damaged by industrialization. However, the Bay Coalition organization objects that the filling will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. It is not industrial damage, but a biological damage. So the arguer can not safely draw any significant conclusion or prediction.

To sum up. The conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing ,the arguer should provide more information concerning the filling in the bay to better evaluate the argument. We need more concrete evidence that filling in the bay . otherwise the argument is logically
unacceptable.

KiKi~淇水滺滺UID: 2679824

huaishi我帮你改a吧~~这次互改是乱套了~~伤心。。。

KiKi~淇水滺滺UID: 2679824

In this argument, the arguer recommends that by filling in 900acres of the bay to build new runways to increase capacity（that 后面是从句吧，那你的主谓宾在哪呢）. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer point out that the reason of flight delays is lack of （用lack就可以了，lack是及物动词）runways to increase capacity. In addition, the arguer assumes that the airport will fund the restoration of 1,000acres of wetlands that have previously been damaged by industrialization .As it stands，the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.
In the first place, the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that the notorious for flight delay is the numbers of delay. In fact, this is not necessarily the case. For example, it is most likely that the delay time is too long to tolerate for passengers. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.
In the second place, the arguer assumes that short of runaways leads to the flight delays .However, there may be other factors that could have caused flight delays. Such as the weather, the loosen discipline of aviator and an（a） careless timetable. So without ruling out such alternative explanations the arguer can not(cannot是连写) convince me that it is the lack of runaways necessarily results in the flight delays.
Finally, the arguer assumes that the airport will fund the restoration of wetlands that have previously been damaged by industrialization. However, the Bay Coalition organization objects that the filling will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. It is not industrial damage, but a biological damage. So the arguer can not safely draw any significant conclusion or prediction.
To sum up，the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more information concerning the filling in the bay to better evaluate the argument. We need more concrete evidence that filling in the bay, otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.

lghscuUID: 2552043

1# huaishi100
2 huaishi100
Argument
模板上：
大概思路：
1.
“臭名昭著”不代表是晚点次数多 可能是晚点时间长.
2. 就算是晚点次数多耶并不一定是缺少跑道引起的
Such as the weather, the loosen(loosening) discipline of aviator and an careless timetable.
3. 重整海湾因工业化而破坏的湿地不会减少因扰乱潮汐规律对生物造成的破坏

句子收获：
In this argument, the arguer recommends that …         
To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer point out that…
In addition, the arguer assumes that…
As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.


In the first place, the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that
In fact, this is not necessarily the case. For example, it is most likely that
Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.
In the second place, the arguer assumes that… .However, there may be other factors that could have caused …So without ruling out such alternative explanations the arguer can not convince me that

Finally, the arguer assumes that
So the arguer can not safely draw any significant conclusion or prediction.


To sum up. The conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims.
To make the argument more convincing ,the arguer should provide more information concerning the filling in the bay to better evaluate the argument. We need more concrete evidence to consider filling in the bay. Otherwise the argument is illogical.



In this argument, the arguer recommends that by filling in 900acres of the bay to build new runways to increase capacity(that从句àbuilding new runways by filling in 900 acres of the bay would increase capacity，总结arguer的论点有点偏,”This plan should be adopted”是argument论点，改为”the Franklin City Council should adopt the proposal of building new runways by filling in 900 acres of the bay to have an increasing capacity at the airport”). To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer point out that the reason of flight delays is lack of runways to increase capacity(have enough capacity). In addition, the arguer assumes that the airport will fund the restoration of 1,000acres of wetlands that have previously been damaged by industrialization(转述作者的论据比直接抄写论据要好，即用自己的话。the airport will give an amount of money to recover the 1,000 acres of wetlands, damaged previously by industrialization) . As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

In the first place, the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that the notorious (notoriety [ˌnətə'raiəti]) for flight delay(flight delays) is (due to) the numbers(number) of delay. In fact, this is not necessarily the case. For example, it is most likely that the delay time is too long to tolerate for passengers. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

In the second place, the arguer assumes that short(shortage) of runaways leads to the flight delays .However, there may be other factors that could have caused flight delays. Such as the weather, the loosen(loosening) discipline of aviator and an careless timetable. So without ruling out such alternative explanations the arguer can not convince me that the lack of runaways necessarily results in the flight delays.

Finally, the arguer assumes that the airport will fund the restoration of wetlands that have previously been damaged by industrialization. However, the Bay Coalition organization objects that the filling will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife(However, this proposal, objected by the Bay Coalition organization, will lead the tidal patterns into chaos and do harm to wildlife尽量少直接引用原文吧). It is not (an) industrial damage, but a biological damage. So the arguer can not safely draw any significant conclusion or prediction.



To sum up. The conclusion reached in the argument(that the proposal of building new runways on the bay should be adopted用模板时要灵活一点：将模板具体化，使得句子看起来比较饱满，最关键的是，可以增加字数，呵呵) lacks credibility(, ) since the evidence cited in the analysis(that flight delays are due to insufficient capacity and the restoration favors the enviroment) does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing ,the arguer should provide more information concerning the filling in the bay to better evaluate the argument. We need more concrete evidence that filling in the bay . otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.

-----
huaishi100有个明显的习惯是：直接引用原句。这可能不怎么好哈...ETS会觉得你个人的思考不够！所以强烈建议在这方面多加注意（仅供参考lghscu）