argument177 [0710G +U Aug小组]第一次作业

wm23UID: 2245087

ARGUMENT177

The author draws a conclusion that should continue restricting the membership in Oak City’s Civic Club to residents of the city. To support his conclusion, the author points out only residents who pay taxes understand business and politics of the city and know how to improve the city. The author also provides the facts of Elm city’s club to support his point of view. The argument seems reliable at first glance, however, the author commits several fallacies, which renders it unacceptable.

Firstly, the author considers only residents understand the business and politics of the city just based on an assuming that not proved. The author fails to provide any evidence to support his point. To suppose, if a nonresident who work in Oak city all daytime, in contrary, a resident who live in Oak city but work in other city whole day, obviously, the nonresident will have more chance to receive more information than the resident in various social aspects, include business and politics. Thus, it is inconvincible to assert the residents must be more understand the city.

Secondly, the assertion that only residents who pay taxes understand how to use money to improve city should be revaluated depend on more evidence. The issue of how to use money to improve city is not only considering by the residents, the people who work in the city, even the people who not work in the city but understand the city also can provide reasonable ideas and methods. Furthermore, the more people think about the issue about development, the more information and idea will collect and more benefits the improvement of the city.

Thirdly, the author makes a false analogy that restricting membership is unlikely to disappoint nonresidents worked in the city just based on the facts of Elm city’s club. The argument need more specific information and details to support its conclusion. The author fails to told us how many nonresidents are working in Elm city, and their attitude toward Elm city’s open policy. Even though, we make an assuming that most nonresidents who worked in Elm city have no interesting in join the club, it also can not regarded as a definitive condition to refuse nonresidents who worked in Oak city join city’s club in response to different city have different circumstance.

In sum, the argument is unacceptable as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to demonstrate that those nonresidents who worked in Oak city are insignificant for improvement of the city, to better evaluate the argument, the author should provides more evidences to prove there are many similarities between Oak city and Elm city, and it is reasonable to deduce the state in Oak city depend on the facts of Elm city.

warlockUID: 2364623

The author draws a conclusion [url=]that[/url][zj1] should continue restricting the membership in Oak City’s Civic Club to residents of the city. To support his conclusion, the author points out only residents who pay taxes understand business and politics of the city and know how to improve the city. The author also provides the facts of Elm city’s club to support his point of view. The argument seems reliable at first glance, however, the author commits several fallacies, which renders it unacceptable.

Firstly, [url=]the author considers only residents understand the business and politics of the city just based on an assuming that not proved[/url][zj2] . The author fails to provide any evidence to support his point. To suppose, if a nonresident who [url=]work[/url][zj3] in Oak city all daytime, in [url=]contrary[/url][zj4] , [url=]a resident who live in Oak city but work in other city whole day[/url][zj5] , obviously, the nonresident will have more chance to receive more information than the resident in various social aspects, [url=]include[/url][zj6] business and politics. Thus, it is inconvincible to assert the residents [url=]must be more understand[/url][zj7] the city.

Secondly, the assertion that only residents who pay taxes understand how to use money to improve city should be revaluated [url=]depend on more evidence.[/url][zj8] [url=]The issue of how to use money to improve city is not only[/url][url=]considering[/url][zj9] by the residents, the people who work in the city, [url=]even[/url][zj10] the people who not work in the city but understand the city also can provide reasonable ideas and methods. [zj11] Furthermore, the more people think about the issue about development, the more information and idea will [url=]collect[/url][zj12] and [url=]more benefits[/url][zj13] the improvement of the city.

Thirdly, the author makes a false analogy that restricting membership is unlikely to disappoint nonresidents worked in the city just [url=]based[/url][zj14] on the facts of Elm city’s club. The argument [url=]need[/url][zj15] more specific information and details to support its conclusion. The author fails to [url=]told[/url][zj16] us how many nonresidents are working in Elm city, and their attitude toward Elm city’s open policy. Even though, we make an assuming that most nonresidents who worked in Elm city have no interesting in join the club, it also can not [url=]regarded[/url][zj17] as a definitive condition to refuse nonresidents who worked in Oak city join city’s club [url=]in response to different city have different circumstance.[/url][zj18]
In sum, the argument is unacceptable as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author [url=]would[/url][zj19] have to demonstrate that those nonresidents who worked in Oak city are insignificant for improvement of the city, to better evaluate the argument, the author should provides more evidences to prove[url=]there are many similarities[/url][zj20] between Oak city and Elm city, and [url=]it is reasonable[/url][zj21] to deduce the state in Oak city depend on the facts of Elm city.



总评：语法错误较多，特别是在长难句的把握上，分不清主谓，是作文大忌。建议：1，先从简单句开始写起，不要贪多贪长
2，多翻阅语法书，看看从句，倒装应该如何使用，有备无患。
3，发帖前最好先自己修改一下，这样可以减少Partner的工作量。谢谢。
[zj1]从句的主语是？如果说是定语从句，那conclusion 也不能作为主语，逻辑上不通


[zj2]1这是个主语从句，开头用that引导，2 base 是及物动词用被动语态


[zj3]我热扩散


[zj4]Contrast


[zj5]这句句子语法错误，要连词


[zj6]Including


[zj7]容易看出来错误


[zj8]这句的主语是？需要连词。或者用定语从句等。


[zj9]considered


[zj10]需要连词and


[zj11]整个长句结构不清楚，建议先从短句写起，如果有时间，温习一下语法书


[zj12]被动语态


[zj13]怎么解释，谓语动词是？


[zj14]同1


[zj15]needs


[zj16]tell


[zj17]be regarded


[zj18]in response to 后面接从句可以，但是你没有连词


[zj19]不用would吧？


[zj20]宾语从句要加that


[zj21]这个不需要了，加进去就多余了。