Argument177【07-10G Superstar大帖】第三次作业 by Huaxinluobo

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

      
       In this letter the speaker get the conclusion by the assumption that people who work in OakCity but live elsewhere do not truly understand the business, politics of city and take interest in them while residents who pay tax do . After scrutiny , I find this argument suffer from a few flows.
     
First flow involves the assumption that people who do not live but work in OakCity can not know well about the city. However , the writer does not prove evidence to justify this. Perhaps  people in this region care more about the conditions of workplace than their living community and if so they may get insights of OakCity. Or perhaps many of these people grew up in OakCity and latter for some reason live outside now , they may be no less informed than those residents. If any of both these possibility is true , then the speak will not have enough reason to exclude nonresidents. In order to make the conclusion convincing, more evidence is needed.
     
Then turn to another assumption that residents understand how the money could best be used  just because they pay tax. But the article fails to prove it. No evidence are showed to convince that people who pay tax are concern about how the money is used.  It is entirely possible that residents pay tax just for the law . Even if they indeed pay attention to it , it does not necessarily mean that they can decide which is best way to use those money. Maybe they are poorly educated and narrow-minded and are not capable of making right decisions .  Thus, without ruling out these possibilities , the conclusion is unconvincing.
     
      Finally , the writer draws a false analogy between OakCity and ElmCity by assume that conditions in both cities are similar to get the conclusion that nonresidents will not be dissatisfied to be restricted to enter the club. First , only 25 nonresidents enter the club in ElmCity do not necessarily mean that the residents in ElmCity have no interest in the club, for we don’t know the total number of nonresidents in the City . Even if it is true that nonresidents show little interest in the club,  it can not lead to that the same condition may happen in OakCity. Differences lie between the two cities in aspects such as age, career , education , economy condition, security , which may influence people’s attention . It’s entirely possible that there are many nonresidents in OakCity who care about social affairs and be eager to enter this club, in which case the restriction may annoy them. So without more information about people’s opinion about the club, I am not convinced that nonresidents will not be disappointed by the restriction.
   
To sum up , to make the letter convincing , the speaker need to prove followings : one, nonresidents know little about the city and have no interest in the club; the other, residents care about social affairs and are capable of rightly use tax money by themselves.   

laura001UID: 2295927

In this letter the speaker get the conclusion by the assumption that people who work in OakCity but live elsewhere do not truly understand the business, politics of city and take interest in them while residents who pay tax do . After scrutiny , I find this argument suffer from a few flows(错字).

     
First flow involves the assumption that people who do not live but work in OakCity can not know well about the city. However , the writer does not prove evidence to justify this. Perhaps  people in this region care more about the conditions of workplace than their living community and if so they may get insights of OakCity. Or perhaps many of these people grew up in OakCity and latter for some reason live outside now , they may be no less informed than those residents. If any of both these possibility is true , then the speak will not have enough reason to exclude nonresidents. In order to make the conclusion convincing, more evidence is needed.
     
Then turn to another assumption that residents understand how the money could best be used  just because they pay tax. But the article fails to prove it. No evidence are showed to convince that people who pay tax are concern about how the money is used.  It is entirely possible that residents pay tax just for the law . Even if they indeed pay attention to it , it does not necessarily mean that they can decide which is best way to use those money. Maybe they are poorly educated and narrow-minded and are not capable of making right decisions .  Thus, without ruling out these possibilities , the conclusion is unconvincing.
     
Finally , the writer draws a false analogy between OakCity and ElmCity by assuming that conditions in both cities are similar to get the conclusion that nonresidents will not be dissatisfied to be restricted to enter the club. Firstly (怎么就单一的出现,后面就没有了), only 25 nonresidents enter the club in ElmCity do not necessarily mean that the residents in ElmCity have no interest in the club, for we don’t know the total number of nonresidents in the City . Even if it is true that nonresidents show little interest in the club, (我觉得这要加个转折词吧) it can not lead to that the same condition may happen in OakCity. Differences lie between the two cities in aspects such as age, career , education , economy condition, security , which may influence people’s attention . It’s entirely possible that there are many nonresidents in OakCity who care about social affairs and be eager to enter this club, in which case the restriction may annoy them. So without more information about people’s opinions about the club, I am not convinced that nonresidents will not be disappointed by the restriction.
   
To sum up , to make the letter convincing , the speaker need to prove followings : one, nonresidents know little about the city and have no interest in the club; the other, residents care about social affairs and are capable of rightly use tax money by themselves.

总结:3个最主要的错误都找到了.写的还不错.结构很清晰.:) 加油加油!



[ 本帖最后由 laura001 于 2007-5-21 21:59 编辑 ]

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

谢谢组长了:loveliness: