ARGUMENT177 [Victors小组]第五次作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

177.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."

  563 words

In this letter, the author recommends that Oak City's Civic Club should continue membership restriction to local residents. To justify this recommendation, the author claims that the primary objective of the club is to discuss local issues which non-residents would not be interested and only residents, the ones pay taxes care about the best way to use money to improve the city. Moreover, the author cites that only a few non-residents joined the civic club under the open membership in the neighboring town, Elm City. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that only tax-payers would like to and knew how to use the city revenue properly. There's no evidence showed in the passage to support it. Maybe non-residents of Oak City are the magnates, who really have the power in the city council. Or perhaps high-tech corporations are the predominant business in Oak City, of which most employees live in the satellite cities around, while residents are just retirees who have little comments on city development. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion that non-residents of the city would have no comments on public affairs and don't understand how to use city revenues correctly.

Secondly, the information about the open membership policy in Elm City is too vague to be informative. The author fails to involve the exact percentage of the non-residents who joined the city club and the size of civic club membership. It is totally possible that non-resident members consisted two thirds of the total, or even more, in the last ten years. Or if it is true that non-resident members were the minority in civic club those years, no promise could be made that the same thing will happen in the future. Perhaps more non-residents realize the importance of their participation in the city affairs so that more people would like to join the city club. Author's failure to verify the fact that in Elm City non-resident would not be disappointed with the city club restriction renders the conclusion based on it suspect.

Furthermore, even if most non-residents don't mind their being exempted from the city fairs and only a few of them joined the civic club in Elm City, it doesn't necessarily mean that people in Oak City have the same opinion. Maybe they keen on any decision made by the city club so much that they have fight for their equal rights to join it for years. Until the author shows sufficient evidence to rule out such possibility, the conclusion that restricting membership won't disappoint those non-residents employed in Oak City could not be taken seriously.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence--maybe be by polls among residents and non-residents about their comments about the idea of city development--to show that only residents, the ones who pay taxes, know how to use revenues properly. In addition, the author should show more data about the open membership policy in Elm City to ensure us that non-residents don’t mind whether they are eligible for joining the city club. To better assess it, we need to know if people in Oak City have the same attitude about civic club membership restriction as those of Elm City.

solartorchUID: 2244205

In this letter, the author recommends that Oak City's Civic Club should continue membership restriction to local residents. To justify this recommendation, the author claims that the primary objective of the club is to discuss local issues which non-residents would not be interested and only residents, the ones pay taxes care about the best way to use money to improve the city.这边不大对吧，好像只是说不understand怎么用，没说care about 和interest的事情 Moreover, the author cites that only a few non-residents joined the civic club under the open membership in the neighboring town, Elm City. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that only tax-payers would like to and knew how to use the city revenue properly. There's no evidence showed in the passage to support it. Maybe non-residents of Oak City are the magnates, who really have the power in the city council. Or perhaps high-tech corporations are the predominant business in Oak City, of which most employees live in the satellite cities around, while residents are just retirees who have little comments on city development. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion that non-residents of the city would have no comments on public affairs and don't understand how to use city revenues correctly.第一段说不understand是错的

Secondly, the information about the open membership policy in Elm City is too vague to be informative. The author fails to involve the exact percentage of the non-residents who joined the city club and the size of civic club membership. It is totally possible that non-resident members consisted two thirds of the total, or even more, in the last ten years. Or if it is true that non-resident members were the minority in civic club those years, no promise could be made that the same thing will happen in the future. Perhaps more non-residents realize the importance of their participation in the city affairs so that more people would like to join the city club. Author's failure to verify the fact that in Elm City non-resident would not be disappointed with the city club restriction renders the conclusion based on it suspect.第二段说Elm City的问题，一是没有给出确切数据，二是不能说明未来问题。

Furthermore, even if most non-residents don't mind their being exempted from the city fairs and only a few of them joined the civic club in Elm City, it doesn't necessarily mean that people in Oak City have the same opinion. Maybe they keen on any decision made by the city club so much that they have fight for their equal rights to join it for years. Until the author shows sufficient evidence to rule out such possibility, the conclusion that restricting membership won't disappoint those non-residents employed in Oak City could not be taken seriously.第三段说两个城市不能类比

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence--maybe be by polls among residents and non-residents about their comments about the idea of city development--to show that only residents, the ones who pay taxes, know how to use revenues properly. In addition, the author should show more data about the open membership policy in Elm City to ensure us that non-residents don’t mind whether they are eligible for joining the city club. To better assess it, we need to know if people in Oak City have the same attitude about civic club membership restriction as those of Elm City.最后总结上述三点

总结一下，不得不说楼主思路非常清晰，避开了一些重复讨论点，语言非常精准。我已经是五体投地了。要好好向楼主学习。