=七月流火=小组第1次小组作业 argu112 by 12lghscu

lghscuUID: 2552043

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: 378
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-8-20 9:48:54

The argument presented above for arguing that building new runways on the bay would make a reduction of the flight delays and that the restoration of the wetlands would offset the destruction in that 900 acres area seems relatively reasonable, however, it fails to consider all the elements necessary to evalution that plan.
It is possible that there exists other possible alternative explanantions for the flight delays rather than a possible lack of enough runways. These alternative explanations might include the fact that weather conditions in that area might be harsh for most of the time. Maybe it is only early in the morning that airplanes could be able to safely land on the runways, or hurricane often happens near the bay which results in an increasing number of flight delays. It might also be the case that the management system of the airplane is not updated frequently, causing a mismatch between the system and the current situation and correspondingly a relatively high flight delays.
The argument also fails to recognize that the wetlands restoration does not necessarily guarantee a compensation for the destruction of the area on which new runways would be built. The circumstance of the 900 acres of the bay as compared to the wetlands would possibly be different. Therefore, there, for instance, would exist some species that have been used to living in an circumstance of the 900 acres of the bay. However, these species may could not live their lives on the wetlands. So even if the wetlands restoration could be effectively done, some animals would lose their homes, consequently, the enviromental problems would become declining. Moreover, is there a room for the 1,000 acres of wetlands damaged by industrialization to be restored? If not, what is the use of the part of the plan, that is, the wetlands restoration? In another word, filling in 900 acres of the bay would increase the extent of being damaged.
Based on the discussion above, before any final decision about the plan of building new runways by filling in 900 acres of the bay is made, this argument should evaluate all possible causes for the flight delays to make it more convincing, and all possible consequences resulted from disrupting tidal patterns and making harm to wildlife.

SasakiKojiroUID: 2678315

The argument presented above for arguing that building new runways on the bay would make a reduction of the flight delays and that the restoration of the wetlands would offset the destruction in that 900 acres area seems relatively reasonable, however, it fails to consider all the elements necessary to evalution that plan.(首先开头对作者结论描述的非常清楚 但我们老师说首段应概括3个方面：1.指出作者conclusion 2.要相应给出作者的evidence 3.指出整体/推理上的大体错误 在我看来此处缺乏第2点evidence 而且说到...to consider all the elements 此处的all个人感觉太极端 感觉是一开始就拿了个棒子把作者所有观点打死了 应该改成有少许让步的句子 ：说作者只考虑了一方面 还有更多的内容没有考虑到位 elements不建议使用 有偏向科学范畴的词 factors比较正确)
It is possible that there exists other possible alternative(alternatives) explanantions for the flight delays （感觉explannations多余 直接用to 连接）rather than a possible lack of enough runways. These alternative explanations might include the fact that weather conditions in that area might be harsh(这个词我的理解是严酷到让人难受的地步 不知你怎么理解的？) for most of the time. Maybe it is only early in the morning that airplanes could be able to safely land on the runways, or hurricane often happens near the bay which results in an increasing number of flight delays. It might also be the case that the management system of the airplane is not updated frequently, causing a mismatch between the system and the current situation and correspondingly a relatively high flight delays. （用herhaps...,herhaps...,herhaps...排比表达效果可能会更好）
The argument also fails to recognize that the wetlands restoration does not necessarily guarantee a compensation for the destruction of the area on which new runways would be built. The circumstance of the 900 acres of the bay as compared to the wetlands would possibly be different. （如果想说2者不同 这样试试：Unlike A,which...,B is ...）Therefore, there, for instance, would exist some species that have been used to living in an circumstance of the 900 acres of the bay. However, these species may could not live their lives on the wetlands. So even if the wetlands restoration could be effectively done, some animals would lose their homes, consequently, the enviromental problems would become declining. Moreover, is there a room for the 1,000 acres of wetlands damaged by industrialization to be restored? If not, what is the use of the part of the plan, that is, the wetlands restoration? In another word, filling in 900 acres of the bay would increase the extent of being damaged.
Based on the discussion above, before any final decision about the plan of building new runways by filling in 900 acres of the bay is made, this argument（这个主语不对吧？应该是人吧） should evaluate all possible causes for the flight delays to make it more convincing, and all possible consequences resulted from disrupting tidal patterns and making harm to wildlife.（尾段的all用的很不错）
总体感觉思路挺清楚的 要是多点句式的变化就更好了
当然 本人第一次改作文 以上纯属个人意见 请LZ不要用大炮轰我~~~
:lol

lghscuUID: 2552043

2# SasakiKojiro

LS的意见很好，欣然接受！
这是我的第一篇A，我会参考LS意见好好地作修改，谢谢谢谢

lghscuUID: 2552043

3# lghscu
The argument presented above recommending that the airport’s plan should be approved, based on that new runways built on the bay would make a reduction of the flight delays and that restoring wetlands of 1,000 acres would ameliorate the bay’s enviroment rather than do harm to it, seems relatively logical. However, it fails to consider other possible facets necessary to evalute that proposal.

It is possible that there exists other possible alternative explanantions for the flight delays rather than a possible lack of enough runways, which might be one of the reasons, but not supported by the evidence. These alternative explanations might include the fact that the weather conditions at the Franklin airport might change frequently, therefore, being unsuitable for airplane’s flying during most of the time. Maybe, for instance, sometimes it is only early in the morning that airplanes could be able to safely land on the runways, while sometimes during twilight. What’s worse, hurricane might happen irregularly near the bay, resultin in an increasing number of flight delays. It might also be the case that the management system at the airport is not updated frequently, causing a mismatch between the system and the current situation and correspondingly a relatively high flight delays. For example, flight delays might occur when the management system can only deal with 50 planes but actually 60 planes are running at the Franklin airport. If these mentioned above are true, new runways would not be a solution to the problem of the flight delays, but just add the financial burden.

The argument also fails to recognize that the wetlands restoration does not necessarily guarantee a compensation for the destruction of the area on which new runways would be built. The circumstance of the 900 acres of the bay would possibly be different as compared to the wetlands . Therefore, there, for instance, would exist some species that have been used to living in an circumstance of the 900 acres of the bay. However, these species may could not live their lives on the wetlands. So even if the wetlands restoration could be effectively done, some animals would lose their homes, consequently, the enviromental problems would become declining. Moreover, is there a room for the 1,000 acres of wetlands damaged by industrialization to be restored? If not, what is the use of the part of the plan, that is, the wetlands restoration? In another word, filling in 900 acres of the bay would increase the extent of being damaged.

In addition to the causes of flight delays and the issue related to enviroment, another essential thing to consider is the profit gained by the Franklin airport. A large amount of money should be invested in the project of filling in the 900 acres of the bay and recovering the wetlands of 1, 000 acres. And these money might not produce profit if the citizens of Franklin have the idea that no matter what the aiport does, the situation of flight delays would not change. So they would choose other vehicles such as automobile when going out. As a result, the Franklin airport would possiblly face deficit instead of making money.

Based on the discussion above, before any final decision about the plan of building new runways by filling in 900 acres of the bay is made, this argument should evaluate all possible causes for the flight delays to make it more convincing, and all possible consequences resulting from disrupting tidal patterns and making harm to wildlife.

在此，感谢SasakiKojiro的宝贵意见（你名字才太长了啊）
感谢Kiki（第三轮攻击来源于Kiki的思考）

flmn1UID: 2316949

不错 我的第一篇也是在这种情况 支持一下