argument177 fly aw 作业， 写得真差啊

exp03UID: 2158827

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: 417          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2006-7-21

The arguer rashes to get the conclusion those nonresidents cannot operate the Oak City's Civic Club for they do not pay city taxes. And the arguer also gives out a resident of neighboring Elm City's Civic Club to state the rightness of the conclusion. However, both the asserting and the evidence are unrealizable.

First of all, how could the arguer says people live in other place cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city even if they work in the Oak City? How to contribute a city is more concerned with the academic level and experience on business and economic. The workers who live outside the Oak City may be more familiar to the business of this city than who live here but work in other areas. Beside, if the workers who are invited from other places by the club have higher educational level than the local civilian, it may be more possible that they know more on how to use taxes on city's transformation, politics, and culture construction.

Second, the arguer uses the example of the Elm City to show that the restricting may not influence the operation of the club. But only few nonresidents joining in the club not means they are not important for the contribution of the city. We know nothing about the total membership in the club during past ten years and what states of these people in the club. It may be that the Civic Club only has 30 core members in these years but 25 of them are nonresidents. Then if the restricting membership begins in the city may let them feel very disappointing.

Even if the value of nonresidents in Elm City is not so important, we cannot assume that they are also not important for Oak City. We cannot conclude that the situation of the two cities can be compared before the evidence showing the sort of the businesses and taxes situation is totally the same. But it seems hardly to get such a conclusion because we know nothing about these aspects. If the Oak City is a business city working by nonresidents and its residents get profits by renting out their buildings and other equipments while Elm City’s businesses are operated by the residents themselves, the experience of Elm City may be not efficient in Oak City.
Therefore, before the club decides whether use the restriction or not, carefully considerations on the business structure of Oak City need to be researched by the club members.