argument177[0710G +U Aug小组]第1次作业

SatanicUID: 2362211

In this argument,the arguer indicates that membership in Oak City's Civic Club should be restricted to people who live in Oak City.The arguer cites the example that the neighboring Elm City's Civic Club had an open membership policy but only twenty-five nonresidents have joined it.In addition,other assumptions are stated which are people who live elsewhere can neither truly understand the business and policy nor understand how the money could best be used.Conspicuously,the argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

First of all,the most serious problem within this analysis is the analogy between Oak City's Civic Club and that of Elm City's. The example of the Elm City's Civic Club cites,while suggestive in this situation,is insufficient to warrant the truth because of the diversities of Elm and Oak in the fields of the structure of the residents, the motivation of the residents in joining the Civic Club and the quality of the residents.When a sample is used to make dicisions of another paticular city, the sample should be close enough in scale to the generalization it is used to support,so that it might be invalid to indicate such a hasty decision on Oak City.

Addtionally,the arguer rediculously sticks to the point that people work,but do not live,in Oak City cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city.The main business and political policies are in the grasp of the upper-level administrator of government,most of whom are senators of the parliament,and do not live in one city steadily.How can you deny the fact that ,although they do not live in the Oak City,they are the elites of the economical and political policies?

Last but not the least,the statment that only residents who pay city taxes understand how the money could be best used is another fault that undermines the argument.Teachers are the sculptors of the soul of the next generation.Architects are the builders of the most gorgeous architectures of the city. Doctors are the rescuers of the deadly patients,and bring the indefinable happiness and thrilling to the patients' family.Many of them might not live in this city,but they have the strongest responsibilities to advocate that taxes are better be used in education, municipal works and medication.

To sum up,the argument is not persuasive as it stands.Before we convince the points the arguer indicates,the argument should be strengthened in the aspect that the similarities between Oak and Elm city are not only based on location ,but the structure ,quality and motivation of the residents.



[ 本帖最后由 Satanic 于 2007-7-25 19:58 编辑 ]

571633UID: 2333480

本人是7楼，请哪位帮忙看看。多谢。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

cofeebeanUID: 2289548

In this argument, the arguer indicates that membership in Oak City's Civic Club should be restricted to people who live in Oak City. The arguer cites the example that the neighboring Elm City's Civic Club had an open membership policy but only twenty-five nonresidents have joined it. In addition ,other [我认为应该去掉other,因为你前面说的是cite the example,而不是assumption]assumptions are stated which are [可以用that替换which are，作为assumptions的同位语从句]people who live elsewhere can neither truly understand the business and policy nor understand how the money could best be used. [这个句子需要再斟酌一下，有头轻脚重之嫌，且句子太长，或者简化，或者分成两个句子]Conspicuously, the argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.
First of all, the most serious problem within[是不是用of或with更好，within有点怪] this analysis is the analogy between Oak City's Civic Club and that of Elm City's. The example of the Elm City's Civic Club cites, while suggestive in this situation, [这个句子表达有点问题]is insufficient to warrant the truth[应该用argument吧] because of the diversities of Elm and Oak in the fields of the structure of the residents, the motivation of the residents in joining the Civic Club and the quality of the residents. When a sample is used to make dicisions[decisions] of another paticular[particular] city, the sample should be close enough in scale to the generalization it is used to support, so that it might be invalid to indicate such a hasty decision on Oak City.
Addtionally, the arguer rediculously[ridiculously] sticks to the point that people [who] work, but do not live, [,多余]in Oak City cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. The main business and political policies are in the grasp of the upper-level administrator of government, most of whom are senators of the parliament, and do not live in one city steadily. How can you deny the fact that ,although they do not live in the Oak City,they are the elites of the economical and political policies?[从句放在后面要好点吧]
Last but not the least, the stat[e]ment that only residents who pay city taxes understand how the money could be best used is another fault that undermines the argument. Teachers are the sculptors of the soul of the next generation. Architects are the builders of the most gorgeous architectures of the city. Doctors are the rescuers of the deadly patients, and bring the indefinable happiness and thrilling to the patients' family. Many of them might not live in this city, but they have the strongest responsibilities to advocate that taxes are[are改为should] better be used in education, municipal works and medication.[个人认为better这样用好象有点怪，要不去掉，要不改为it is better to spend taxes in]
To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we convince the points the arguer indicates,t he argument should be strengthened in the aspect that the similarities between Oak and Elm city are not only based on location ,but the structure ,quality and motivation of the residents.
[楼主昨天晚上就搞定了，佩服，看来我得练练速度了，看来还是得借鉴下模版。
综述：
1、 body1的类比，如果能在the structure ,quality and motivation of the residents这几方面展开，以两句话举个实例说明一下会更好。
2、 对body2,我的看法和楼主出入比较大，我认为arg是凭空假设nonresidents不懂该市的政治经济状况，仅仅因为他们不住在市内，所以我是从nonresidents的工作入手反驳。我认为涉及到上层、议员有点远，因为其实他主要还是拿nonresidents与residents比，在是否live in the city上做文章。
3、 Body3展开的很好。]