Argument177高频！ 前后写了两次，高手们看看那次比较有逻辑性

veinardUID: 2195006

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."

第一次
In this argument, the arguer recommends that membership in Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City by citing that people who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city and only residents understand how to best use the city taxes. The arguer also takes the neighboring Elm City for example to claim that such exclusion will not disappoint the nonresidents. Thought scrutiny we can discover that this argument has several logical flews which prevent it from convincing.

To begin with, no evidence can prove that people who work in OC but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. The fact may just be opposite for tow reasons. First, because those people do not live in the city and do not pay city taxes, how to use the money is less relevant to their interests, so they may offer more objective ideas or suggestion about the business and politics to the government. Second, since they are live in another cites, they are more aware of the differences between OC and other cities. Only compared with other cities, government and citizens in OC can know what the advantages as well as flaws in the business and politic systems, thus improve the profits of the business and the efficiency of the government.

Secondly, the arguer unwarrantedly thinks that only the residents who pay the taxes can understand how the money could be used to improve the city. He doesn't provide any information to establish a correlation between paying the taxes and understanding how to use the taxes money, let alone prove that these two cases have the cause-and-effect relationship. Perhaps the residents only pay attention to those things which are relevant to their narrow individuals' interests but ignore the public benefits, or they don't realize some possible flaws in various aspects of OC because they never know other cities' better situations and methods to improve the city.

Finally, the arguer fails to offer any reliable evidence to analogy the situation of OC's Civic Club is the same as that of EC's. Only citing that twenty-five nonresidents are the club's members don’t make any sense at all. Perhaps EC is a little city in which the situation of employment is not very satisfied, so it doesn't have much attraction to the nonresidents to work there. But OC may be a city which is consisted of much immigration, or OC's economy has developed to a high lever and working in it is promising. If these assumption are facts, nonresidents in OC is highly possible to be disappoint with the restriction to exclude them from the club, and follow the arguer's advice is apparently unreasonable. Moreover, the arguer should provide specific statistics about the total nonresidents of EC or the twenty-five nonresident who have joined the Civic Club in EC take how much percents of the whole nonresidents.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands on a series of unproven assumptions. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide the evidence to prove that the nonresidents of OC cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city and there is necessarily cause-and-effect relationship between paying taxes and understanding how to use the money to improve the city. Besides, the conditions of EC and OC should also be offered to prove that nonresidents of OC will not be disappointed with the arguer's recommendation.         

第二次
In this argument, the author of the letter recommends that the Civic Club of Oak City(OC) should continue to restrict to people who live in OC. To support it, the arguer points out that only the people who live in the city can understand the business and politics of the city and know how to use their taxes to improve the city. Moreover, the arguer cites the example of Elm City(EC)'s Civic Club to claim that the restriction is unlikely disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in OC. However, through scrutiny I find this argument suffers from several logical flaws.

First, the arguer fails to demonstrate that only the residents can understand the business and politics of the city since they pay the city taxes and therefore understand how to use them. No evidence can prove the two matters have the causal relationship. It is entirely possible that those people who work in OC but live elsewhere contribute more than the residents to the business and politics realms, and they can fully understand the two areas of OC. Or perhaps the residents cannot point out a better way to use the taxes for that their lives are confined in OC and they hardly know the improved methods to construct the city which are operated by other cities. Unless the arguer can ruling out these possibilities, I will never convince that only the people who live in OC can help to develop the city.

Second, the example of the EC involve in statistic problem. Without the number of the nonresidents of EC, the arguer cannot conclude that nonresidents in the city are not interested in the Civil Club. Maybe the whole amount of nonresidents in EC is twenty-five and they all participate in the Club. If this is the case, the cited statistic lends little support to demonstrate that nonresident pay little attention to the Civil Club of EC despite it always has an open membership policy.

Third, even if only a few nonresidents be concerned about EC's Club is true, the arguer unjustifiably infers that the nonresidents of OC will also have the same response to the Club. Maybe the EC is a small city whose employment is not very satisfactory while OC is an industrial city which needs a lot of labor forces from elsewhere thus the number of nonresidents is very large. If so, the arguer cannot conclude that the nonresidents is unlikely disappoint with the restrictions.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer should offer the number of the nonresidents of OC and prove that they really do not understand the issues of the city. To better assess the argument, I need to know more specific information about the Civic Club of EC and economic situation of both of the cities.

jinzhemingUID: 2224073

你的文章越来越长啊，越来越厉害:L


第一次
In this argument, the arguer recommends that membership in Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City by citing that people who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city and only residents understand how to best use the city taxes. The arguer also takes the neighboring Elm City for example to claim that such exclusion will not disappoint the nonresidents. Thought scrutiny we can discover that this argument has several logical flews which prevent it from convincing.

To begin with, no evidence can prove that people who work in OC but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. The fact may just be opposite for tow reasons. First, because those people do not live in the city and do not pay city taxes, how to use the money is less relevant to their interests, so they may offer more objective ideas or suggestion about the business and politics to the government. Second, since they are live in another cites, they are more aware of the differences between OC and other cities. Only compared with other cities, government and citizens in OC can know what the advantages as well as flaws in the business and politic systems, thus improve the profits of the business and the efficiency of the government.


Secondly, the arguer unwarrantedly thinks that only the residents who pay the taxes can understand how the money could be used to improve the city. He doesn't provide any information to establish a correlation between paying the taxes and understanding how to use the taxes money, let alone prove that these two cases have the cause-and-effect relationship. Perhaps the residents only pay attention to those things which are relevant to their narrow individuals' interests but ignore the public benefits, or they don't realize some possible flaws in various aspects of OC because they never know other cities' better situations and methods to improve the city.
/我觉得反例应该是nonresidents 也知道如何用钱/

Finally, the arguer fails to offer any reliable evidence to analogy the situation of OC's Civic Club is the same as that of EC's. Only citing that twenty-five nonresidents are the club's members don’t make any sense at all. Perhaps EC is a little city in which the situation of employment is not very satisfied, so it doesn't have much attraction to the nonresidents to work there. But OC may be a city which is consisted of much immigration, or OC's economy has developed to a high lever and working in it is promising. If these assumption are facts, nonresidents in OC is highly possible to be disappoint with the restriction to exclude them from the club, and follow the arguer's advice is apparently unreasonable. Moreover, the arguer should provide specific statistics about the total nonresidents of EC or the twenty-five nonresident who have joined the Civic Club in EC take how much percents of the whole nonresidents.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands on a series of unproven assumptions. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide the evidence to prove that the nonresidents of OC cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city and there is necessarily cause-and-effect relationship between paying taxes and understanding how to use the money to improve the city. Besides, the conditions of EC and OC should also be offered to prove that nonresidents of OC will not be disappointed with the arguer's recommendation.         

第二次
In this argument, the author of the letter recommends that the Civic Club of Oak City(OC) should continue to restrict to people who live in OC. To support it, the arguer points out that only the people who live in the city can understand the business and politics of the city and know how to use their taxes to improve the city. Moreover, the arguer cites the example of Elm City(EC)'s Civic Club to claim that the restriction is unlikely disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in OC. However, through scrutiny I find this argument suffers from several logical flaws.

First, the arguer fails to demonstrate that only the residents can understand the business and politics of the city since they pay the city taxes and therefore understand how to use them. No evidence can prove the two matters have the causal relationship. It is entirely possible that those people who work in OC but live elsewhere contribute more than the residents to the business and politics realms, and they can fully understand the two areas of OC. Or perhaps the residents cannot point out a better way to use the taxes for that their lives are confined in OC and they hardly know the improved methods to construct the city which are operated by other cities. Unless the arguer can ruling out these possibilities, I will never convince that only the people who live in OC can help to develop the city. 态度好坚决啊！
/请问你是不是认为people who pay city taxes 和people who work in OC but live elsewhere 是相同的，所以把People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city和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 这两个evidence放在一起攻击？/ /攻击specious evidence  cause and effect/


Second, the example of the EC involve in statistic problem. Without the number of the nonresidents of EC, the arguer cannot conclude that nonresidents in the city are not interested in the Civil Club. Maybe the whole amount of nonresidents in EC is twenty-five and they all participate in the Club. If this is the case, the cited statistic lends little support to demonstrate that nonresident pay little attention to the Civil Club of EC despite it always has an open membership policy. /攻击specious evidence/

Third, even if only a few nonresidents be concerned about EC's Club is true, the arguer unjustifiably infers that the nonresidents of OC will also have the same response to the Club. Maybe the EC is a small city whose employment is not very satisfactory while OC is an industrial city which needs a lot of labor forces from elsewhere thus the number of nonresidents is very large. If so, the arguer cannot conclude that the nonresidents is unlikely disappoint with the restrictions. /false analogy/

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer should offer the number of the nonresidents of OC and prove that they really do not understand the issues of the city. To better assess the argument, I need to know more specific information about the Civic Club of EC and economic situation of both of the cities.

veinardUID: 2195006

谢谢你的批改~
其实这个A第一次和第二次的区别就在于你问的那个问题，即要不要把People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city和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 这两个evidence放在一起攻击
第一次把这两个分开了，就是主体第一段和第二段。但是第一段的反驳又涉及到taxes.

第二次放在一起，即主体第一段。是因为我觉得这两个练习很紧密。主体第二段批驳EC的statistic problem.

现在我明白了，只要把第一次的主体第一段关于taxes的反驳换成别的就可以避免这个问题了。