argument177 [中华龙第12次作业,球拍啊]

Ammmy2000UID: 2265680

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."

======================================================
1. The author thinks that those who work in OC but live without could not truely understand the business and politics of the city.
2. Whether it is only city taxes that were be used to improve the city.
3. The situation about EC Club hardly represented OC own condition.
======================================================

In this letter, the author recommends a restriction of membership in Oak City's (OC) Club. To support his recommendation, he cites the reasons that people working in OC but living elsewhere could hardly understand the business and politics and the city taxes paid only by residents are used in improving the city. He also points out that the restriction could rarely make nonresidents disappointed due to the results of Elm City's Civic Club. Clear scrutiny of these factors, however, reveals that none of them lends credible support to his recommendation.

To begin with, the author thinks that those who only work in OC but live without could barely comprehend the business and politics of the city, but he fails to provide the reasons to substantiate his assumption. Since we are never informed about what kinds of occupational work they attended or how long they have worked in OC, it is entirely likely that most of them dabble in business or politics and acquire abundant knowledge about them, or most of them work for one or two decades and clearly understand the policies in such realms. In addition, not living in OC now does not mean they never lived in OC. Perhaps they were brought up by their relatives who are our residents, or perhaps they used to live here for several years but left to another nearby district. Therefore, how can we make a hasty conclusion only because they are nonresidents?

Moreover, whether it is only city taxes that were used to improve the city is a question. Those who live without OC may pay other taxes such as the income taxes, company taxes and business taxes, parts of the funds to improve OC. Besides, we acquire little information about the proportion of city taxes in the total improving funds. It then stands to the reasons that the city taxes are far from enough to the usage of city improvement. Furthermore, nonresidents may actively sponsor the city and make the large contribution in the city development. Without ruling out these possible reasons, the author could not convince us thoroughly.

In addition, only through the results by Elm City, we could hardly believe that the restriction is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents. First, the background of two cities may differ distinctly. Perhaps, the number of those who work in EC but live without it is limited, whereas the number in OC is too large. Second, although only 25 nonresidents joint the club does not mean the proportion is limited. An alternative explanation is that the total number of members is 40 and the nonresidents may domain the club. Third, even though the result of EC is convincing, however, we could never know whether nonresidents would feel disappointed or not. Perhaps some of them plan to resident in OC, but the unequal restriction may make them feel annoyed and even never make contribution to the city development. Unless the arguer could furnish more evidence to bolster his idea, hardly could we regard what he said as rational.

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To substantiate his recommendation, the author should provide extra information about nonresidents and the composition of the total fund utilized to improvement and the proportion of city taxes. To better assess the recommendation, we should also need the evidence to support the claim that nonresidents do not feel sorry for the restriction.

lih008UID: 2269470

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."

======================================================
1. The author thinks that those who work in OC but live without could not truely understand the business and politics of the city.
2. Whether it is only city taxes that were be used to improve the city.
3. The situation about EC Club hardly represented OC own condition.
======================================================

In this letter, the author recommends a restriction of membership in Oak City's (OC) Club. To support his recommendation, he cites the reasons that people working in OC but living elsewhere could hardly understand the business and politics and [the city taxes paid only by residents are used in improving the city.][这一点跟题目意思有偏差，仔细读题。] He also points out that the restriction could rarely make nonresidents disappointed due to the results of Elm City's Civic Club. Clear scrutiny of these factors, however, reveals that none of them lends credible support to his recommendation.

To begin with, the author thinks that those who only work in OC but live without could barely comprehend the business and politics of the city, but he fails to provide the reasons [evidence搭配] to substantiate his assumption. Since we are never informed about what kinds of occupational work they attended or how long they have worked in OC, it is entirely likely that most of them dabble in business or politics and acquire abundant knowledge about them, or most of them work for one or two decades and clearly understand the policies in such realms. [注意时态] In addition, not living in OC now does not mean they never lived in OC. Perhaps they were brought up by their relatives who are our residents, or perhaps they used to live here for several years but left to another nearby district. Therefore, how can we make a hasty conclusion only because they are nonresidents? [最好不要用问句作结尾段]

Moreover, whether it is only city taxes that were used to improve the city is a question. Those who live without OC may pay other taxes such as the income taxes, company taxes and business taxes, parts of the funds to improve OC. Besides, we acquire little information about the proportion of city taxes in the total improving funds. It then stands to the reasons that the city taxes are far from enough to the usage of city improvement. Furthermore, nonresidents may actively sponsor the city and make the large contribution in the city development. Without ruling out these possible reasons, the author could not convince us thoroughly .

In addition, only through the results by Elm City, we could hardly believe that the restriction is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents. First, the background of two cities may differ distinctly. Perhaps, the number of those who work in EC but live without it is limited, whereas the number in OC is too large. Second, although only 25 nonresidents joint the club does not mean the proportion is limited. An alternative explanation is that the total number of members is 40 and the nonresidents may domain the club. Third, even though the result of EC is convincing, however, we could never know whether nonresidents would feel disappointed or not. Perhaps some of them plan to resident in OC, but the unequal restriction may make them feel annoyed and even never make contribution to the city development. Unless the arguer could furnish more evidence to bolster his idea, hardly could we regard what he said as rational.

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To substantiate his recommendation, the author should provide extra information about nonresidents and the composition of the total fund utilized to improvement and the proportion of city taxes. To better assess the recommendation, we should also need the evidence to support the claim that nonresidents do not feel sorry for the restriction.

[在argument中，攻击原文论点时也要注意逻辑。文章的三个正文段好像缺少必要的逻辑关系。]