argument177 [0710G+U Aug小组]第一次作业 by totoalsm45518

totalsm45518UID: 2286658

很久之前写的了，今天稍微修改了一下，大家多给意见
words：558

In this argument, the speaker recommends that 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. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites the evidence that the neighboring Elm City’s Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, while only twenty-five nonresidents have joined it in the last ten years. The arguer also indicates the assumption that people who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the daily affairs in business and politics of the city. However, the analysis is problematic and cannot convince us as it stands.
  
  In the first place, the arguer claims that People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city, which is unreasonable. Since they spend their work time here, which takes a major part of one’s life, together with communicating with the residents, they have very possibility to know much about the city’s business and politics style. Therefore, they absolutely have the capability and right to discuss the local issues. What’s more, as the modern society filled of severe rivalries, there is an exceeding need to absorb elites from other compartments. People who work here and live at another city is the very right source to bring others advantages. So there is no reason to exclude these people out of the civic club.
  
  In the second place, the arguer forces a relationship between paying taxes and well-known of how to use the money, which is rootless. There is no proof to convince us the combination of the two things. The ability of managing the money efficiently of people has no connection with whether they have investigated. The aim of this money is to improve the city so that it can provides much better benefits for both residents and nonresidents. As a result, the nonresidents are not necessarily to be restricted.
  
  In the third place, the arguer cites the evidence happened in the neighboring city simply to prove that the local city has the same condition, which is unsubstantiated. There is no evidence provide that showing the two cities are under the same situation. Maybe there are abundant differences concerning the city scale, the population, the whole level of consumption and so forth, in which case, we cannot conclude that Oak will have the same result as Elm. In addition, if the club in Elm lacks of wonderful management, the few joiner of nonresidents is not proper for the arguer’s proof.
  
  The last but not least, the arguer’s assumption that restricting membership is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed is totally unwarranted. Though he cites the statistics in Elm, the number given is very vague. Maybe the total number of nonresidents there is quite small so 25 people have taken a great part. Nevertheless, restricted and excluded in the civic club, it is very probable for nonresidents to have complaints and dissatisfaction, which may directly lead their loss of enthusiasm in working and consequently make loss of the whole city.
  
  In sum, the analysis doesn’t have enough and convincing proof to make us accept the conclusion. To strengthen it, the speaker should cite more evidence and statistic that prove the real advantages and necessaries to have restricted rules.

SatanicUID: 2362211

In this argument, the speaker recommends that 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. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites the evidence that the neighboring Elm City’s Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, while only twenty-five nonresidents have joined it in the last ten years. The arguer also indicates the assumption that people who work in Oak City but who[去掉who] live elsewhere cannot truly understand the daily affairs in business and politics of the city. However, the analysis is problematic and cannot convince us as it stands.[第一段按照论点，论据和假设的顺序，写的很规矩]
  
  In the first place, the arguer claims that People who work in Oak City but who [去掉who] live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city, which is unreasonable. Since they spend their work time here, which takes a major part of one’s life, together with communicating with the residents, they have very possibility[单独名词，不用官词？] to know much about the city’s business and politics style. Therefore, they absolutely have the capability and right to discuss the local issues. What’s more, as the modern society filled of severe rivalries, there is an exceeding need to absorb elites from other compartments. People who work here and live at another city is the very right source to bring others advantages[这里有点问题，改为and have their advantages是不是更好？]. So there is no reason to exclude these people out of the civic club.
  
  In the second place, the arguer forces a relationship between paying taxes and well-known of how to use the money, which is rootless. There is no proof to convince us the combination of the two things.[这句有问题，意思很不明确，建议换成孙远的经典辩论correlation和casual relation的关系问题句子。因为是否缴税是相互关系，没有形成到参加俱乐部的因果关系。] The ability of managing the money efficiently of people has no connection [改成correlation]with whether they have investigated. The aim of this money is to improve the city so that it can provides much better benefits for both residents and nonresidents. As a result, the nonresidents are not necessarily to be restricted.
  
  In the third place, the arguer cites the evidence happened in the neighboring city simply to prove that the local city has the same condition, which is unsubstantiated. There is no evidence provide[provided] that showing[太中式，你觉得用indicate that是否好些] the two cities are under the same situation. Maybe there are abundant differences concerning the city scale,[用破折号] the population, the whole level of consumption[最好列举３个形成对仗] and so forth, in which case, we cannot conclude that Oak will have the same result as Elm. In addition, if the club in Elm lacks of wonderful management, the few joiner of nonresidents is not proper for the arguer’s proof.
  
  The last but not [加定冠词]least, the arguer’s assumption that restricting membership is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed is totally unwarranted. Though he cites the statistics in Elm, the number given is very vague. Maybe the total number of nonresidents there is quite small so 25[用比例] people[people作人不可数] have taken a great part. Nevertheless, restricted and excluded in the civic club, it is very probable for nonresidents to have complaints and dissatisfaction, which may directly lead their loss of enthusiasm in working and consequently make loss of the whole city.
  
  In sum, the analysis doesn’t have enough and convincing proof to make us [有make sb. do sth的结构吗]accept the conclusion. To strengthen it, the speaker should cite more evidence and statistic [２个名词用复数更好]that prove the real advantages and necessaries to have restricted rules.[这一句有语病，要么改成不定式和后面的定语从句。这样更有力量]

文章逻辑严密，思路清晰，推理明确，可见G作文功底比较深，我要向你学习。
语病有一些，chinglish有一些，语句不够圆润，语言有待提高。