Argument216【0806G-Sunbird小组】第5次作业

tyddUID: 2351248

argument 216 (我的第一次习作，感谢sunbird）

1住房费用在去年下降并不代表比别的地方的低
2房地产税比邻近城市的低 并不代表比其他非临近的城市的低
3市长承诺改善学校 街道和公共服务 而且市长的承诺并不一定会实现 即使能实现 要多少年也说不定 而且学校和的问题可能老年人并不关心
4医生数量多不代表质量高 且就医费用没有提到 可能高于别的地区 这样的话 可能只有少数老人能享受到出色的医疗服务
字数：498    时间：4hours  日期：2007.11.24 周六

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. The author advocates that for anyone who seek a place to retire, Clearview should be a top choice. To justify this claim the author cites that housing costs in the city have fallen significantly during the past year, and real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. In addition, the speaker reasoned that Clearview's mayor has promised many new programes to improve schools, streets, and public services. He also cites that excellent health care can be expected. However, a close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it suffers from several critical fallacies, as discussed below.

To begin with, the speaker simply assumes that retirees all tend to live in a place with spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate, but does not provide any evidence to substantiate this is the case. It is true that most people enjoy the natural beauty and good weather, but the speaker must show that they prefer to choose such a place for living rather than live in where they are familiar. Otherwise, based on this slim information, we can never get the conclusion that  Clearview should be a top choice.

In addition, the fallen housing costs in Clearview during the last year is not a good indication of  whether housing price in the city is lower than other cities. It is highly possible that after having been reduced significantly, the housing price is still expensive. The speaker can not convince me that such housing price cutdown can be an bonus without providing more information concerning the actual price.

Moreover, I find the speaker's reason that based on the city's lower real estate taxes compared to neighboring towns is unconvincing. The speaker fails to provide assurances that Clearview's real estate taxes are lower than its non-neighboring towns. If so, I can not be convinced that the Clearview has competitive adavantage in attracting house buyers.

Another problem with the argument is that whether the city mayor will keep his promises is unwarranted. Even if the speaker can guarantee that the mayor is faithful, it is still uncertain when will such promises be carried out and come into reality. Even if the promises can be fufilled in the near future, it is still gratuitous that these measures, especially the school improvement, will benefit the retirees.

Finally, the great number of physicians does not necessarily indicate high quality health care. Moreover, the speaker fails to provide information involves the healty-care cost. If the cost is too high for most retirees to afford, then excellent health care is unwarranted.

In conclusion, the argument lacks credibility for the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the speaker's recommendation. To make it logically acceptable, the speaker must provide more facts that Clearviwe is more fit for the retirees to live in. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information concerning the housing price, health-care level, the retirees' inclination about living surroundings and so forth.



[ 本帖最后由 tydd 于 2007-11-24 22:43 编辑 ]

Bellona0428UID: 2418798

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. The author advocates that for anyone who seek a place to retire, Clearview should be a top choice. To justify this claim the author cites that housing costs in the city have fallen significantly during the past year, and real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. In addition, the speaker reasoned that Clearview's mayor has promised many new programes to improve schools, streets, and public services. He also cites that excellent health care can be expected. However, a close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it suffers from several critical fallacies, as discussed below.[此段有一些罗索，可以写得更简洁一些。4，5两句可以合并的阿]

To begin with, the speaker simply assumes that retirees all tend to live in a place with spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate, but does not provide any evidence to substantiate this is the case. It is true that most people enjoy the natural beauty and good weather, but the speaker must show that they prefer to choose such a place for living rather than live in where they are familiar. Otherwise, based on this slim information, we can never get the conclusion that  Clearview should be a top choice.

In addition, the fallen housing costs in Clearview during the last year is not a good indication of  whether housing price in the city is lower than other cities. It is highly possible that after having been reduced significantly, the housing price is still expensive. The speaker can not convince me that such housing price cutdown can be an bonus without providing more information concerning the actual price.

Moreover, I find the speaker's reason that based on the city's lower real estate taxes compared to neighboring towns is unconvincing. The speaker fails to provide assurances that Clearview's real estate taxes are lower than its non-neighboring towns. If so, I can not be convinced that the Clearview has competitive adavantage in attracting house buyers.

Another problem with the argument is that whether the city mayor will keep his promises is unwarranted. Even if the speaker can guarantee that the mayor is faithful, it is still uncertain when will such promises be carried out and come into reality. Even if the promises can be fufilled in the near future, it is still gratuitous that these measures, especially the school improvement, will benefit the retirees.

Finally, the great number of physicians does not necessarily indicate high quality health care. Moreover, the speaker fails to provide information involves the healty-care cost. If the cost is too high for most retirees to afford, then excellent health care is unwarranted.

In conclusion, the argument lacks credibility for the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the speaker's recommendation.[这半句不写是不是也行啊，总觉得北美有些罗索] To make it logically acceptable, the speaker must provide more facts that Clearviwe is more fit for the retirees to live in. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information concerning the housing price, health-care level, the retirees' inclination about living surroundings and so forth.


很不错的一篇Argument噢~ 逻辑清晰明了，语言简洁丰富，分析到位。
功夫不负有心人啊 ~~~~嘿嘿~ 像你学习
请回拍https://bbs.gter.net/thread-768560-1-1.html

[ 本帖最后由 Bellona0428 于 2007-11-26 16:08 编辑 ]

tyddUID: 2351248

好人。。
也没人和组长抢的。。。