Argument177 April小组第四周第十三篇作业

gingerleeUID: 2454321

TOPIC: ARGUMENT177 - The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.

"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club-a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues-should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."
WORDS: 548         TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2008-4-9 17:18:18

In the letter of OCG local newspaper, the letter contends that OCC club should continue to adopt the policy of membership restriction to people who live in OC. To support this contention, the letter cites the fact that only people who live in OC can have a better understanding of the business and politics of the city. The letter also points out that only residents pay city taxes to OC. The letter suffers from a series of poor assumptions, which render it wholly unconvincing.

To begin with, the letter indicates that people who work in OC rather than inhabit there cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. This evidence seems ridiculous. Common sense informs that people who choose OC as their working place must have some knowledge about the business and politics of this city by reading the local newspaper and talking to their colleagues in the same office. And this letter fails to show the strong evidence which can demonstrate these people do not know the business and politics. Without this real evidence, the letter cannot draw any conclusion whatsoever.

Even assuming that people who do not live in OC cannot truly understand the business and politics, the argument still suffers from other fallacies that render the assumption indefensible. The letter infers that it's important to have member restriction because only residents pay city taxes.  The letter neglects another important fact that people who work in the city also pay taxes through their companies to the city. In addition, the letter also infers that the residents know better how the money could be used in the development of the city than non-residents. The letter fails to consider other factors. It is entirely possible that people working in OC are academic expertise specializing in economic realm and know how to develop the city in a proper way. Without consider these possibilities, the letter cannot draw the conclusion that it is important to restrict membership to city residents.

Finally, a careful reading of this letter in the local newspaper reveals two additional logical flaws. Firstly, it claims that there is no need for OC club to have an open membership policy, since neighboring EC club has adopted this policy. However, such policy taken in EC club does not necessarily proves that people who cannot have membership in OC club are willing to enjoy EC, since perhaps these people are not living in EC or even far away form it. Secondly, it also cites that over past ten years, twenty five nonresidents became the members of EC club. This assumption sounds ridiculous, since these statistics themselves have provided a strong evidence showing that people in OC don't have interest in EC club. If they do, they should have enjoyed it earlier and nonresidents of EC club member should far more than twenty five.

In sum, the argument has a myriad of problematic assumptions that cannot make me accept. In order to support this argument, the letter should provide stronger evidence to show it is important OC club to adopt a restriction membership policy. To evaluate this argument, I need more information to know whether nonresidents in OC do really not know the business and policies in OC, whether they do not pay taxes to OC as well.

kingwyf87UID: 2457409

"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club-a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues-should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."
WORDS: 548         TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2008-4-9 17:18:18

In the letter of OCG(第一次写是不是要把全称写一遍括号里写简写，以后再用简写代替啊？) local newspaper, the letter contends that OCC club should continue to adopt the policy of membership restriction to people who live in OC. To support this contention, the letter cites the fact that only people who live in OC can have a better understanding of the business and politics of the city. The letter also points out that only residents pay city taxes to OC. The letter suffers from a series of poor assumptions, which render it wholly unconvincing.(第一段是不是把题中的调查写进去会更完善啊？)

To begin with, the letter indicates that people who work in OC rather than inhabit there cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. This evidence seems ridiculous. Common sense informs that people who choose OC as their working place must have some knowledge about the business and politics of this(that) city by reading the local newspaper and talking to their colleagues in the same office. And this letter(是不是可以考虑同义词的替换？) fails to show the strong evidence which can demonstrate these people do not know the business and politics. Without this real evidence, the letter cannot draw any conclusion whatsoever.

Even assuming that people who do not live in OC cannot truly understand the business and politics, the argument still suffers from other fallacies that render the assumption indefensible. The letter infers that it's important to have member restriction because only residents pay city taxes.  The letter neglects another important fact that people who work in the city also pay taxes through their companies to the city. In addition, the letter also infers that the residents know better how the money could be used in the development of the city than non-residents. However, the letter fails to consider other factors. It is entirely possible that people working in OC are academic expertise specializing in economic realm and know how to develop the city in a proper way. Without consider these possibilities, the letter cannot draw the conclusion that it is important to restrict membership to city residents.

Finally, a careful reading of this letter in the local newspaper reveals two additional logical flaws. Firstly, it claims that there is no need for OC club to have an open membership policy, since neighboring EC club has adopted this policy. However, such policy taken in EC club does not necessarily proves that people who cannot have membership in OC club are willing to enjoy EC, since perhaps these people are not living in EC or even far away form it.(题目好像没说这一点吧，只是说在EC的调查中发现只有少数人加入，从而想说明在OC人们对此政策会抱怨的很少，而不是你所说OC的人加入EC的Club吧) Secondly, it also cites that over past ten years, twenty five nonresidents became the members of EC club. This assumption sounds ridiculous, since these statistics themselves have provided a strong evidence showing that people in OC don't have interest in EC club. If they do, they should have enjoyed it earlier and nonresidents of EC club member should far more than twenty five.

In sum, the argument has a myriad of problematic assumptions that cannot make me accept. In order to support this argument, the letter should provide stronger evidence to show it is important OC club to adopt a restriction membership policy. To evaluate this argument, I need more information to know whether nonresidents in OC do really not know the business and policies in OC, whether they do not pay taxes to OC as well.

P.S.：

倒数第二段所涉及的逻辑错误好像与题目中所描述的无关，个人意见仅供参考~