Argument77 留链必回拍！！！

PrudenceUID：2286952

77. The cities of East Sacunda and West Sacunda are in an earthquake-prone area. Since 1985 both cities have had stringent building codes requiring all new building to have specific features designed to prevent damage in an earthquake. Buildings built before 1985 are exempt from the codes, but many buildings owners have modified their buildings to make them conform to the 1985 codes. Last year a major earthquake hit the area, and many people lost their homes. The number of people who were left homeless was much higher in East Sacunda than in West Sacunda, however, so we can conclude that buildings owners in East Sacunda were less likely to modify their buildings so as to bring them up to the 1985 codes standards.

1. 首先作者依据一个假说:那就是倒塌的都是1985年以前建立的
2. 其次作者还依据另一个假说  两地地震的震级一样
3. 即使两地的震级一样，但是如果两个的地理概况不同呢？
4. 最后即使是首先作者说两地倒塌不一样多，就说。。。太武断了。也许两地的面积不一样，一个一小，房屋有多有少，虽然一个倒塌的多但他占总数的比例说不定比另一个小很多。

In this argument the arguer concludes that buildings owners in East Sacunda were less likely to modify their buildings to meet the 1985 codes standards. To justify this conclusion the argument points out that last year when a major earthquake hit the area, the number of people who were left homeless was much higher in East Sacunda than in West Sacunda. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the arguer’s conclusion.

To begin with, the argument relies on a poor assumption that the buildings was damaged in the earthquake are those built before 1985, and modified by their owners, which is the reason leads to the different results in East Sacunda than in West Sacunda. However, the argument fails to provide any information about these buildings damaged. Perhaps these buildings were built after 1985. And when they were built, in order to make the max profit, the boss of the building company did not use enough materials. Thus, these new buildings failed to stand the earthquake, although they were built to meet the 1985 codes. In short, without providing the information about the buildings damaged renders the conclusion unconvincing.

Even if the buildings damaged in earthquake are built before 1985, the arguer unreasonably relies on another assumption, that the earthquake’s magnitudes in the different place are same, to get the conclusion. However, again, the arguer fails to provide this information. Maybe the magnitude in East Sacunda is higher than that in West Sacunda, and this leads to the difference. In order to make the conclusion persuasive, the arguer needs to provide this information.

Even though, the magnitudes in the two places are same, there are some other reasons results in the difference, such as the difference of underground condition. It is completely possible that what under the East Sacunda is sand and soil while what under the West Sacunda rock. Common sense tells us that buildings built on sand and soil are much easier to be damaged than those built on rock. Thus, without any information about the underground condition, the arguer’s conclusion is unpersuasive.

Finally, even assuming the condition underground of the two places are same, there is another possibility leads to this difference. That is, East Sacunda is much bigger than West Sacunda, and has more buildings. If we use the proportion of damaged buildings with all buildings in one area, that is completely possible that the proportion of East Sacunda is little than that of West Sacunda. In this respect, the numbers makes no sense.

In sum up, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the arguer needs to provide more specifics about which kind buildings were largely damaged, whether the earthquake in the two places are same, whether the underground condition are same, and the proportions of damaged buildings with all buildings in two areas.

PrudenceUID：2286952

I need you help me with my Argument.
Give me your suggestions.
Thank you!!!
:)

iq28UID：2152875

这一个题目之中有茫茫多的错误
选择起来确实有难度.
这一点lz做得不是很好
最后再说

In this argument the arguer concludes that buildings owners in East Sacunda were less likely to modify their buildings to meet the 1985 codes standards. To justify this conclusion the argument points out that last year when a major earthquake hit the area, the number of people who were left homeless was much higher in East Sacunda than in West Sacunda. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the arguer’s conclusion. (开头段落没必要这么长.除非lz限时内已经可以把body写得非常丰满,否则不要过分把时间花在开头上面.)

To begin with, the argument relies on a poor assumption (模版化的语句最好不要.否则跟下面自己写的内容读起来反差很大.便扭) that the buildings was damaged in the earthquake are those built before 1985, and modified by their owners, which is the reason leads to the different results in East Sacunda than in West Sacunda. However, the argument fails to provide any information about these buildings damaged. Perhaps these buildings were built after 1985. And when they were built, in order to make the max profit, the boss of the building company did not use enough materials. Thus, these new buildings failed to stand the earthquake, although they were built to meet the 1985 codes.  In short, without providing the information about the buildings damaged renders the conclusion unconvincing. (严重的语病)
(不看你的中文提纲还真的不知道你这段想说什么.首先你说倒掉的房子不一定都是85之前造的而且被整改过的.然后又重点说了如果倒掉的楼房是现在的那么原因会是什么.不知道你具体要反驳作者的哪个论点.)
(是否是85年之前建造的房子这个细节并不重要.我们要argu的是倒塌的房子是整修与否,与时间无关.)

Even if the buildings damaged in earthquake are built before 1985, the arguer unreasonably relies on another assumption, (同上一段) that the earthquake’s magnitudes in the different place are same, to get the conclusion. However, again, the arguer fails to provide this information. Maybe the magnitude in East Sacunda is higher than that in West Sacunda, and this leads to the difference. In order to make the conclusion persuasive, the arguer needs to provide this information. (这一段本身的ts就没什么好展开的,所以不建议单独开一个段落.跟别的两地地域差别合并到一个段落吧)

Even though, the magnitudes in the two places are same, there are some other reasons results (语法) in the difference, such as the difference of underground condition. It is completely possible that what under the East Sacunda is sand and soil while what under the West Sacunda rock. Common sense tells us that buildings built on sand and soil are much easier to be damaged than those built on rock. Thus, without any information about the underground condition, the arguer’s conclusion is unpersuasive. (攻击得确实不错.不过是没有总领的一个段落,整段过于细节化,同样也是两个城市的区别.建议合并)

Finally, even assuming the condition underground of the two places are same, there is another possibility leads to this difference. That is, East Sacunda is much bigger than West Sacunda, and has more buildings. If we use the proportion of damaged buildings with all buildings in one area, that is completely possible that the proportion of East Sacunda is little than that of West Sacunda. In this respect, the numbers makes no sense. (段内攻击已经很成熟了!赞)

In sum up, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the arguer needs to provide more specifics about which kind buildings were largely damaged, whether the earthquake in the two places are same, whether the underground condition are same, and the proportions of damaged buildings with all buildings in two areas.

首先恭喜
段内攻击没有太多可以让我下笔改的地方

不过宏观上的布局还是有些问题

作者的逻辑顺序
从两地遭受地震袭击之后的受损情况,再加上之前已知的管理规则,推导出东部的人较少修整房屋.

你的第一个body,攻击倒塌的房屋都不一定是85之前的;第二个body,转而攻击地震强度不同的问题;第三个body攻击两地地理情况不同;第四个body又是攻击两地大小的不同

四个body中间后三个body都在攻击地域的问题
而且之间的让步关系非常勉强

别的类型的逻辑问题你没有提及太多

比如,整修了房子是不是就代表了地震的时候房子不会倒?这个整修有效么?

影响房屋质量还有别的因素么?(非地域的)

我想到的攻击顺序

首先攻击n年前的房屋整修法案是否对于地震真的有效?如果无效,后面说的所有的都是废话.

其次,就算整改有效,仅仅倒塌房屋数量上的差别不能代表东部的人就不是不整修房子的,比如城市的大小,城市的地质等等(大小跟地质之间可以来一个让步)

moreover,不考虑两地固有的差别,当时地震的时候两地的震级就完全一样吗?


感觉我自己也有点说得不是很清楚
对于lz段落之间的要求可能有点bt
自己也没法做到更好了
也有可能是今天有点晕 汗
看看明天脑子清醒了能不能来再看

PrudenceUID：2286952

:loveliness:
感谢!!!

PrudenceUID：2286952

真感谢
:loveliness:

[ 本帖最后由 Prudence 于 2007-3-24 09:40 编辑 ]

lazyfishesUID：2309724

楼主是限时写的吗？好厉害。我就写了楼主一半的字数。我是怎么写都写不快，限时苦练了十篇，也就把字数从150 提到了200多点。不过楼主说的那几条我基本都写了。我因为动作慢，也就不敢把多余的话都衍生开。掐了头尾的模版，中间就几句话。1-是东区可能人口密度大，是居住区 。西区也许是商业区 2-东区也许离震中较近（我倾向认为一个city的两部分区域，所以我觉得地理什么应该不会差远，也不会有两次地震吧？） 3-地震等级过大，1985年的code失效。其他我觉得也就是衍生的，应该没什么可说的了？

PrudenceUID：2286952

不是限时写的，
自己的攻击思路不成熟，
限时无益的！
我24号考试，
打算一周来限时模考