argument174 （kito小组第十次作业）谢谢大家拍砖！

智恩UID: 2160717

174The following recommendation was made by the president and
administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, to the
college's governing committee.

"We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of
all-female education rather than admit men into its programs. It is true
that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing
that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But eighty
percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the student
government wanted the school to remain all female, and over half of the
alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping
the college all-female, therefore, will improve morale among students and
convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially."
提纲：
1 文中提到的两次调查的代表性值得怀疑。（第一个调查中作者没有指出调查的范围，所以他的观点不具有代表性；第二个调查也不具有代表性，因为很有可能是那些反对coeducation的校友更倾向于回答问卷；）
2 单词用错了，alumni是指男校友，Grove全是女生，所以应该用alumna；
3Grove alumna 不会仅仅因为coeducation这一问题而减少资助。（而且作者也没有调查那些反对coeducation的alumna所提供的资助数额，很有可能支持coeducation的alumna所提供的资助数额高于反对coeducation的alumna，所以coeducation会影响资助的观点是untenable。）
4 没有证据说明keeping the college all-female 会促进morale。而且作者也没有考虑到the benefits of coeducation, eg. 学生更加活跃，在各方面能够全面发展等。
正文：
The author of this argument recommends keeping the Grove College all-female education in order to improve students’ morale and make alumni continue supporting the college financially. To convince us the author cites two surveys showing that although a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, 80% of students responding to a survey conducted by the student government wanted to remain all-female education and over half of the alumni answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Close scrutiny of the evidence the author cited, yet reveals that it is logically flawed in a number of aspects and therefore is unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the representative of the two surveys deserves to doubt. First the author fails to point out the spectrum of respondents to the survey conducted by the student government. Perhaps this survey is responded by the same grade which neglects each grade’s opinion. Even if the result of eighty percent of students wanted to remain all-female education, no information is provided to demonstrate that eighty percent of students oppose the coeducation and respondents just “wanted to” keep the original policy. That is to say the respondents do not mean it is indispensable to adopt all-female policy in Grove College. Second the separate survey answered by alumnae could not reflect the view of whole alumnae because it is entirely possible that the alumnae who opposed coeducation are inclined to response this survey. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities the author’s recommendation is indefensible.

In addition the author misuses a word “alumni” which means men graduate from colleges however the Grove College is an all-female college. So the author should use “alumna”, a woman graduates from college, instead of “alumni”.

Moreover the author unfairly assumes that the alumnae of Grove College would decline their financial support just because of coeducation policy. The education policy maybe is one of the determinants which influence the financial support of Grove College alumna. Besides, the author fails to conduct a survey of the definite amount of money provided by alumnae who oppose coeducation and people who agree with coeducation. It is highly possible that alumnae who support coeducation provide more financial support than the opponents of coeducation. Thus that the coeducation policy would have an effect on financial support is untenable.

Finally no evidence is offered to substantiate the keeping all-female policy could enhance morale among students. The author fails to provide reasons to illustrate the all-female policy can improve students’ morale. What is more the author ignores the benefits of coeducation policy. For instance students may behave actively and develop comprehensively due to the coeducation.

To sum up this recommendation is unconvincing as it stands. To make it credible the author must provide the spectrum of respondents of the survey to guarantee the representative of the two surveys. Additionally to strengthen it the author must conduct a survey and demonstrate the strong disagreement to coeducation of alumnae who offer financial support to Grove College and moreover the alumnae claim that if the Grove College adopts coeducation policy, they would stop offer money immediately. Finally the author should change ”alumni” into “alumna”.

@amy@UID: 209096

The author [这里不知道需不需要注意，就是题目中用的是we，那我们这里是不是也要用复数] of this argument recommends keeping the Grove College all-female education in order to improve students’ morale and make alumni continue supporting the college financially. To convince us the author cites two surveys showing that although a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, 80% of students responding to a survey conducted by the student government wanted to remain all-female education and over half of the alumni answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Close scrutiny of the evidence the author cited, yet [为什么用yet？是要表达“更”的意思还是别的？] reveals that it is logically flawed in a number of aspects and therefore is unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the representative of the two surveys deserves to doubt [这里是不是应该写成deserves to be doubted或者deserves doubt]. First the author fails to point out the spectrum of respondents to the survey conducted by the student government. Perhaps this survey is responded by the same grade[,] which neglects each grade’s opinion. Even if the result of eighty percent of students wanted to remain all-female education, no information is provided to demonstrate that eighty percent of students oppose the coeducation and respondents just “wanted to” keep the original policy. That is to say the respondents do not mean it is indispensable to adopt all-female policy in Grove College. Second the separate survey answered by alumnae could not reflect the view of whole alumnae because it is entirely possible that the alumnae who opposed coeducation are inclined to response this survey. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities the author’s recommendation is indefensible.

In addition the author misuses a word “alumni” which means men graduate from colleges however the Grove College is an all-female college. So the author should use “alumna”, a woman graduates from college, instead of “alumni”. [这个问题不知道是题目的笔误，还是有意的]

Moreover the author unfairly assumes that the alumnae of Grove College would decline their financial support just because of coeducation policy. The education policy maybe is one of the determinants[,] which influence the financial support of Grove College alumna. Besides, the author fails to conduct a survey of the definite amount of money provided by alumnae who oppose coeducation and people who agree with coeducation. It is highly possible that alumnae who support coeducation provide more financial support than the opponents of coeducation. Thus that the coeducation policy would have an effect on financial support is untenable.

Finally no evidence is offered to substantiate the keeping all-female policy could enhance morale among students. The author fails to provide reasons to illustrate the all-female policy can improve students’ morale.[这句话好像和上句话意思完全一样啊] What is more the author ignores the benefits of coeducation policy. For instance students may behave actively and develop comprehensively due to the coeducation.

To sum up this recommendation is unconvincing as it stands. To make it credible the author must provide the spectrum of respondents of the survey to guarantee the representative of the two surveys. Additionally to strengthen it the author must conduct a survey and demonstrate the strong disagreement to coeducation of alumnae who offer financial support to Grove College and moreover the alumnae claim that if the Grove College adopts coeducation policy, they would stop offer money immediately. Finally the author should change ”alumni” into “alumna”.

还有一个问题是，我不知道是不是有些地方必须要用逗号断句，比如最后一段“To sum up”后面是不是要加上逗号才合适，这点我不确定，我的习惯是断句。