Argument234 【Aero小组】第三次作业

m2zhyUID: 2440721

Argument234

The following appeared in a newspaper feature story.
"There is now evidence that the relaxed manner of living in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities. Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual workers than do businesses in the nearby large city of Mason City. Furthermore, Leeville has only one physician for its one thousand residents, but in Mason City the proportion of physicians to residents is five times as high. And the average age of Leeville residents is significantly higher than that of Mason City residents. These findings suggest that people seeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities."


The newspaper story concludes that living in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does in big cities, by comparing small town Leeville and Msaon City in several aspects —— days of sick leave taken, physicians and the average age of residents. It seems some relevant, however, the evidence lends little credible support for the argument.

First of all, the survey that businesses in Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual workers than the nearby large city of Mason City, could be support the conclusion only if the portion of the employees were nearly the same in both regions. Moreover, the author seems assume that who takes the sick leave is the very one who is sick. But, it is possible that someone may take goldbrick while someone persevere in working. And the survey obviously only contain the employees while the retirees and elders also playing a significant role in local people’s heath and longevity issue. Anyway, without the parallel and representational sample of local residents, it is hardly reliable to compare the health and longevity situation of the two towns.  

Secondly, the argument is weakened by the fact that the proportion of physicians to denizens in Mason City is five times as high as in Leeville. It is at least likely that Mason City has better medical treatment while small town Leeville does not. It is also possibly that dwellers in Leeville would go big city for physicians. Further more, more physicians don’t indicate more patients. By contrary, denizens can benefit much from the advanced and all-sided medical care system.

Thirdly, the author cites the fact the average age of Leeville residents is higher than that of Mason City residents. Otherwise, any possible factors could explain this disparity. For instance, comparing with small town, young blood would prefer working in big city for more opportunities while retirees and elders are likely favorite in moving to small town for peaceful life. In this case, the longevity of residents in small town will be some attributed to the big city.

Finally, to prove if one place is beneficial to one’s health and longevity, it would need to consider various factors like local natural environment, community facilities, medical care system and so on. And it is extremely insufficient to support the good suggest that people seeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities, just by evidence of one small town and one big city.

To conclude, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. It is inequitable to make the conclusion just basing on several deficient investigations about the residents living in Leeville and Mason City. One who wants to seek healthier and longer life should think over more complex factors rather only than the size of the town.


[ 本帖最后由 m2zhy 于 2007-12-27 21:05 编辑 ]

katu1204UID: 2355887

size=2]The newspaper story concludes that living in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does in big cities, by comparing small town Leeville and Msaon City in several aspects —— days of sick leave taken, physicians and the average age of residents. It seems some relevant, however, the evidence lends little credible support for the argument.

First of all, the survey that businesses in Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual workers than the nearby large city of Mason City,(这句话似乎不是survey的同位语) could be(去掉) support the conclusion only if the portion of the employees were nearly the same in both regions. Moreover, the author seems assume that who takes the sick leave is the very one who is sick. But, it is possible that someone may take goldbrick while someone persevere in working. And the survey obviously only contain the employees while the retirees and elders also playing a significant role in local people’s heath and longevity issue. Anyway, without the parallel and representational sample of local residents, it is hardly reliable to compare the health and longevity situation of the two towns.  

Secondly, the argument is weakened by the fact that the proportion of physicians to denizens in Mason City is five times as high as in Leeville. It is at least likely that Mason City has better medical treatment while small town Leeville does not. It is also possibly that dwellers in Leeville would go big city for physicians. Further more, more physicians don’t indicate more patients. By contrary, denizens can benefit much from the advanced and all-sided medical care system.

Thirdly, the author cites the fact the average age of Leeville residents is higher than that of Mason City residents. Otherwise, any possible factors could explain this disparity. For instance, comparing with small town, young blood would prefer working in big city for more opportunities while retirees and elders are likely favorite in moving to small town for peaceful life. In this case, the longevity of residents in small town will be some attributed to the big city.（最后一句话没看懂）

Finally, to prove if one place is beneficial to one’s health and longevity, it would need to consider various factors like local natural environment, community facilities, medical care system and so on. And it is extremely insufficient to support the good suggest that people seeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities, just by evidence of one small town and one big city.

To conclude, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. It is inequitable to make the conclusion just basing on several deficient investigations about the residents living in Leeville and Mason City. One who wants to seek healthier and longer life should think over more complex factors rather only than the size of the town.


comments:
    文章分析很到位，用词用句都很准确，语法错误很少，很不错了。缺点暂时没发现:)

m2zhyUID: 2440721

"In this case, the longevity of residents in small town will be some attributed to the big city.”

这句话本来是想表达：这样的话，小城镇居民的长寿将会部分取决于大城市。
不知道要表达这个意思，应该怎么说才合适？:confused:

saavedroUID: 2423190

Argument234

The following appeared in a newspaper feature story.
"There is now evidence that the relaxed manner of living in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities. Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual workers than do businesses in the nearby large city of Mason City. Furthermore, Leeville has only one physician for its one thousand residents, but in Mason City the proportion of physicians to residents is five times as high. And the average age of Leeville residents is significantly higher than that of Mason City residents. These findings suggest that people seeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities."


The newspaper story /(The story excerpt from newspaper 能多凑些字数！！ 呵呵) concludes that（少主语 谁住？ 这样与后面promotes 这个动词没有对应？） living in small towns promotes（如果that 从句中不加入主语的话，这个动词就要使用别的形式了，要不然似乎出现了单主语，双谓语的错误） better health and greater longevity than does in big cities, by comparing small town Leeville and Msaon City in several aspects —— days of sick leave taken, physicians and the average age of residents. It seems （those factors/reasons 这里对应上面举出的两个比较方面，所以称之为因素或者是原因，不然这里直接说-看似相关，好像很突然。 are )some（删） relevant, however, the evidence lends little credible support for the argument.

First of all, the survey that businesses in Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual workers than the (condition个人加上说明情况和前面的你描述的事物对应，相当于代词替换。 which)nearby large city of Mason City, could be support the conclusion only if the portion of the employees were nearly（删）（in virtually) (commensurable ) the same(删） in both regions.(因为在上面一段里头看到了你的这个nearly的用法结构，这里为了避免重复吧，所以我按照自己的思维加入了，如果不对的话还请指出，呵呵） Moreover, the author seems assume that who takes the sick leave is the very one who is sick. But, it is （加上个副词应该更好些）possible that someone may take goldbrick（漂亮的GRE用词！！！但是就是前面take能不能这么用我就不知道了，虽说 give take make get 无敌替换，但是始终觉得这里有些勉强） while someone persevere in working. And the survey obviously only contain the employees while the retirees and elders also playing a significant role in local people’s heath and longevity issue.（这句话写的很好啊！！！） Anyway, without the parallel and representational sample of local residents, it is hardly reliable to compare the health and longevity situation of the two towns.  

Secondly, the argument is weakened by the fact that the proportion of physicians to denizens（这个词区别题目中的residents用得好，我也记忆了这个同义表达，呵呵） in Mason City is five times as high as in Leeville. It is at least likely that Mason City has better medical treatment while small town Leeville does not. It is also possibly that dwellers（再一次变换，看来作者对于同义变换有过总结啊） in Leeville would go (to) big city for physicians. Further more, more physicians don’t indicate more patients(貌似有问题，如果你想表达更多的医生不能说明就会有更多的病人的话后面再more patients后面加补语说明一下，不然读起来容易误解）. By contrary, denizens can benefit much from the advanced and all-sided medical care system.

Thirdly, the author cites the fact the average age of Leeville residents is higher than that of Mason City residents. Otherwise, any possible factors could explain this disparity. For instance, comparing with small town, young blood（呵呵，这个表达好，我也学会了一个同义表达 哈哈） would prefer working in big city for more opportunities while retirees and elders are likely favorite in moving to small town for peaceful life.(这句话表达的很到位，很想新概念3中第41课的其中一句） In this case, the longevity of residents in small town will be some attributed to the big city.（这句话虽然没有错误，但是这么写不太好，尤其是 some ，这个词太不果断了，应该很肯定地说大城市中长寿的人怎么怎么样。。。。。 而反过来说 小城市中长寿的人也部分的归结于大城市，与其说小城市中长寿者比例实际上受到了大城市的良性影响，倒不如直接说大城市主导作用，因此本身也具有这样的潜力，从而弱化小城市长寿的这个文章中出现的不利信息。）

Finally, to prove if one place is beneficial to one’s health and longevity, it would need to consider various factors like local natural environment, community facilities, medical care system and so on. And it is extremely insufficient to support the good suggest that people seeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities, just by evidence of one small town and one big city（megalopolis 最后总述的时候可以用这种能够代替大城市的词汇，一者避免重复，二者也有概括意义).

To conclude, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. It is inequitable to make the conclusion just basing on several deficient investigations about the residents living in Leeville and Mason City. One who wants to seek healthier and longer life should think over more complex factors rather only than the size of the town（ as a single aspect.).


----------------------