argument107 (no pain no gain)

tingting_tUID: 2124800

Argument107
The following appeared in an editorial in the Seatown newspaper.
"Seatown has a large port exclusively for fishing boats, whose owners pay fees for the upkeep of the docks and for facilities for cleaning engines and repairing nets. In recent years, declining fish populations have decreased fishing revenue and forced many owners to stop fishing altogether. As a result, the port has a high vacancy rate and port managers are considering allowing pleasure boats, including cruise ships and other large vessels, to use the port in order to increase revenue. But allowing pleasure boats into the port would be a mistake, because the fishing boats would be forced out of the port. We should preserve the port for the fishing fleet, which, unlike pleasure boats, contributes to the prosperity of Seatown."
提纲：
1 引进娱乐船只后渔船不一定要离开港口，没有必然联系，没有说明两种船只为什么不能共用港口
2 娱乐船只可以促进当地旅游业的发展，可以促进当地的繁荣
3 如果不引进娱乐船只，港口将逐渐闲置，使收入减少，这样也会影响当地的繁荣
正文：
In this argument, the arguer recommends that in order to keep the prosperity of Seatown, we should preserve the port for the fishing boats only. To support this conclusion the arguer points out that fish population has declined and the port has a high vacancy rate. Moreover the arguer reasons that the managers of the port tend to allow pleasure boats to use the port to raise income. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

The major problem with this argument is that the author assumes that fishing boats will have to leave the port if pleasure boats are allowed. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. It is possible that travelers taking the pleasure boats are also interested in the course of fishing, and they can also go with the fishermen to enjoy the pleasure of fishing, which can be a practicable way of attracting tourists. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

Another problem that undermines the logic of this argument is that only the fishing fleet can contribute to the prosperity of the town. The author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if fishing is the fundamental industry of the town, it does not follow that the newly built tourist industry cannot surpass it. Besides, the arguer does not provided any solid information concerning the average income of fishing. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the author cannot confidently conclude that if they allow pleasure boats to the port the town will go through a recession.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw that weakens the argument. There is no thorough lost-benefit in this argument. If the increase of cost overweighs that of benefits, the town’s financial situation will fall in trouble of losing rather than gaining money. Also, the author neglects the fact that with the decreasing of fish population the income of the fishermen who pay for the upkeep will get fewer. It is sure that the vacant of the port will do nothing to help improve the town’s financial situation. So why not introducing the pleasure boats to make full use of the port?

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to take the following conditions into consideration: why the fishing fleets would be forced out of the port after the pleasure boats arrive; and pleasure boats will not increase the revenue of the town as much as the fishing boats do. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

lorraineyeUID: 2157370

In this argument, the arguer recommends that in order to keep the prosperity of Seatown, we should preserve the port for the fishing boats only. To support this conclusion the arguer points out that fish population has declined and the port has a high vacancy rate. Moreover the arguer reasons that the managers of the port tend to allow pleasure boats to use the port to raise income[事实上这两条理由并不是用来支持结论的对吧，所以不能就这样当证据提出来]. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

The major problem with this argument is that the author assumes[建议在前面加个unfairly啥的] that fishing boats will have to leave the port if pleasure boats are allowed. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. It is possible that travelers taking the pleasure boats are also interested in the course of fishing, and they can also go with the fishermen to enjoy the pleasure of fishing, which can be a practicable way of attracting tourists. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.[这个理由举得有点别扭……]

Another problem that undermines the logic of this argument is that only the fishing fleet can contribute to the prosperity of the town[这句话表意不明，建议和下一句合并：另一个问题是作者草率地认为只有渔船能促进经济]. The author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if fishing is the fundamental industry of the town, it does not follow that the newly built tourist industry cannot surpass it. Besides, the arguer does not provided any solid information concerning the average income of fishing[这句是指怀疑渔业到底能有多少收入吧？应该再明确地说出来。而且这个理由应该放到前面。渔业不一定能赚钱，即使能，也许旅游能赚更多。这样逻辑上更顺]. Without ruling out these and other possible[这个不用说得那么复杂吧，直接说these好了] factors, the author cannot confidently conclude that if they allow pleasure boats to the port the town will go through a recession.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw that weakens the argument[这句没有信息量，记住TS是要让人一看就知道这段的主要内容的]. There is no thorough lost-benefit in this argument. If the increase of cost overweighs that of benefits, the town’s financial situation will fall in trouble of losing rather than gaining money[这两句没看明白……]. Also, the author neglects the fact that with the decreasing of fish population the income of the fishermen who pay for the upkeep will get fewer. It is sure that the vacant of the port will do nothing to help improve the town’s financial situation. So why not introducing the pleasure boats to make full use of the port?[这段有点没说明白，是时间不够了吗]

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible[这本来就是个贬义的词吧，建议换做logical], in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to take the following conditions into consideration: why the fishing fleets would be forced out of the port after the pleasure boats arrive; and pleasure boats will not increase the revenue of the town as much as the fishing boats do. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

[还不错哈，语法上都没啥问题，中间有些逻辑错误，大概是时间紧迫的缘故吧，可以理解：）另外我认为这个argument根本没有提出任何支持结论的证据，TT再看一下哈，如果同意的话，那有些语句就要改改了~

写了与快五百个字呢~赞~~ 为什么我一限时就没话说了，通常憋不到四百个字，苦恼！！！]

tingting_tUID: 2124800

惭愧的说~还是没有现时，而且写了半天把自己都弄糊涂了
失败啊~

george106UID: 180880

In this argument, the arguer recommends that in order to keep the prosperity of Seatown, we should preserve the port for the fishing boats only. To support this conclusion the arguer points out that fish population has declined and the port has a high vacancy rate. Moreover the arguer reasons that the managers of the port tend to allow pleasure boats to use the port to raise income. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

The major problem with this argument is that the author assumes that fishing boats will have to leave the port if pleasure boats are allowed. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. It is possible that travelers taking the pleasure boats are also interested in the course of fishing, and they can also go with the fishermen to enjoy the pleasure of fishing, which can be a practicable way of attracting tourists. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.这个理由好象不太好吧。。我觉得是怕pleasure  boats对fishing boat有影响，比如公用场地，环境等问题，建议换

Another problem that undermines the logic of this argument is that only the fishing fleet can contribute to the prosperity of the town. The author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if fishing is the fundamental industry of the town, it does not follow that the newly built tourist industry cannot surpass it. Besides, the arguer does not providedprovide any solid information concerning the average income of fishing， Without ruling out these and other possible罗嗦 factors, 感觉再具体点，到底什么factors呢，感觉象是套话啊the author cannot confidently concludesthat if they allow pleasure boats to the port the town will go through a recession.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw that weakens the argument不好的ts,而且好象a中尽量不要出现I之类的词，太主观. There is no thorough lost-benefit in this argument. If the increase of cost overweighs that of benefits, the town’s financial situation will fall in trouble of losing rather than gaining money. Also, the author neglects the fact that with the decreasing of fish population the income of the fishermen who pay for the upkeep will get fewer. It is sure that the vacant vacancyof the port will do nothing to help improve the town’s financial situation. So why not introducing the pleasure boats to make full use of the port?

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible这个词不对, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to take the following conditions into consideration: why the fishing fleets would be forced out of the port after the pleasure boats arrive; and pleasure boats will not increase the revenue of the town as much as the fishing boats do. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.


限时的吗？还不错，加油啊！

Gardenia-2005UID: 2135942

In this argument, the arguer recommends that in order to keep the prosperity of Seatown, we should preserve the port for the fishing boats only. To support this conclusion the arguer points out that fish population has declined and the port has a high vacancy rate. Moreover the arguer reasons that the managers of the port tend to allow pleasure boats to use the port to raise income. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.argument的经典开头啊
The major problem with this argument is that the author assumes that fishing boats will have to leave the port if pleasure boats are allowed. TS跑到哪里去了？However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. It is possible that travelers taking the pleasure boats are also interested in the course of fishing, and they can also go with the fishermen to enjoy the pleasure of fishing, which can be a practicable practical way of attracting tourists. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

Another problem that undermines the logic of this argument is that the author states only the fishing fleet can contribute to the prosperity of the town. The author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if fishing is the fundamental industry of the town, it does not follow follow？that the newly built tourist industry cannot surpass it. Besides, the arguer does not provided any solid information concerning the average income of fishing. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the author cannot confidently conclude that if they allow pleasure boats to the port the town will go through a recession.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw that weakens the argument. 这样的开头句不是很赞赏的说There is no thorough lost-benefit in this argument. If the increase of cost overweighs that of benefits, the town’s financial situation will fall in trouble of losing rather than gaining money. Also, the author neglects the fact that with the decreasing of fish population the income of from the fishermen who pay for the upkeep will get fewer. It is sure that the vacant of the port will do nothing to help improve the town’s financial situation. So why not introducing the pleasure boats to make full use of the port?

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence 没看懂~~~, which does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to take the following conditions into consideration: why the fishing fleets would be forced out of the port after the pleasure boats arrive; and pleasure boats will not increase the revenue of the town as much as the fishing boats do. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.
这次的开头句写得不太好，其他都写得不错，表达也很流畅，加油咯