Argument144 【0710G-HIT坚持交作业小组作文大帖】第二次作业

scarf83UID：2285995

TOPIC: ARGUMENT144 - According to a poll of 200 charitable organizations, donations of money to nonprofit groups increased by nearly 25 percent last year, though not all charities gained equally. Religious groups gained the most (30 percent), followed by environmental groups (23 percent), whereas educational institutions experienced only a very small increase in donations (3 percent). This poll indicates that more people are willing and able to give money to charities but that funding for education is not a priority for most people. These differences in donation rates must result from the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than are other kinds of institutions.
WORDS: 420          TIME: 00:00          DATE: 2007-7-31 23:52:10

严重超时完成的，接了好几次电话。也实在没心情写下去了，勉强提交，，，

Syllabus

1. 总结author观点，提出反对
2. 首先怀疑poll的真实性，没有说明参与poll的机构的组成成分，教育的捐献可能基数很大，上升率小但钱也很多，不能说明人们认为教育不需要投入
3. 没有说明捐献的人的分布情况，攻击willing and able
4. 认为教育捐献重要和实际捐献的钱没有关系，认为教育需要投入，但不一定在这方面捐钱
5. 总结

Based on the survey, tha author make a conclusion that small increase in donations to educational institution resulted from the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than other kinds of institutions. The passage is well presented but not logically reasoned. With in depth scrunity, the passage reveals many fallacies which largely undermine the credibility of the assertion.

In the first place, I would examine the validity of this poll, which surveyed 200 charitable organizations. However, the author is failing to make me convinced that more people are willing to give money to charities. First, even prdovided 200 charitable organizations taken part in the poll are able to be delegated as the whole charitable orgnizations in the nation, there is no detail information of what proportion religious groups, environmental groups and educational groups account for. Thus, if the educational groups accounts for only a little part of the whole organizations, it is a certain result that donations to educational institutions increase very tinily. Second, the author is also failing to consider other alternatives including that the donations' amount may be the largest all the time, although the educational institurions experienced only a very small increase, the final money received by educational groups may be still greater than the others. Consequently, without any elaborate materials about the poll, the conslusion of small increase in donations to educational institutes can not be established convincingly.

What is more, even provided that donations to educational institute incresed tinily, however, there is no warranty to prove more people are able to give money to charities. It is entirely perhaps most part of donation money were provided by a limited number of regular corporations or individuals rather than more people. Thus, the author ought to give more data about people who donated to make it able to ensure whether more people are willing and able to give money to charities or not.

Morever, even assuming that more people are willing and able to donate and educational institution increases little, the author is too hasty to make the conclusion that funding for education is not a priority for most people who think educational institute is less in need of donations. Because funding for other charitable institues does not mean thinking educational need is less, although they pay less money on it.

In sum, to better strengthen the passage, the author needs to provide detail information about the poll and the people who donate. Furthermore, the real reason influencing enducational funding should be investigated further.

kiki1988UID：2329056

哥哥，你的题目写错了~~~是ISSUE 144~~……:(

SavileRowUID：2284947

Based on the survey, the author make (makes) a conclusion that small increase in donations to educational institution resulted from the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than other kinds of institutions. The passage is well presented but not logically reasoned. With in depth scrunity(scrutiny), the passage reveals many fallacies which largely undermine the credibility of the assertion.

In the first place, I would examine the validity of this poll, which surveyed 200 charitable organizations. However, the author is failing to make me convinced that more people are willing to give money to charities. First, even prdovided(provided) 200 charitable organizations taken part in the poll are able to be delegated as the whole charitable orgnizations(organizations) in the nation, there is no detail information of what proportion religious groups, environmental groups and educational groups account for. Thus, if the educational groups accounts for only a little part of the whole organizations, it is a certain result that donations to educational institutions increase very tinily(word不认这个词). Second, the author is also failing to consider other alternatives including that the donations' amount may be the largest all the time（你是想说明以往的，比如说去年的，捐赠就很多，增长率虽然小，但增量还是很明显？ 我认为讲得不够准确，我看了2遍才看明白）, although the educational institutions experienced only a very small increase, the final money received by educational groups may be still greater than the others. Consequently, without any elaborate materials about the poll, the conclusion of small increase in donations to educational institutes can not be established convincingly.
Firstly, secondly应该是正确的用词，而不是first,second

What is more, even provided that donations to educational institute incresed tinily, however, there is no warranty to prove more people are able to give money to charities. It is entirely perhaps（貌似perhaps不是这么用的，它好像不能当表语） most part of donation money were provided by a limited number of regular corporations or individuals rather than more people. (我觉得这里应该深入论证下去，提供细节，比如说：如果这种情况，而且这种情况还有发展，那恰好是说明了越来越少人捐款。细节的论述是很重要的，不能不痛不痒的说一个可能性就放过它)Thus, the author ought to give more data about people who donated to make it able to ensure whether more people are willing and able to give money to charities or not.

Moreover, even assuming that more people are willing and able to donate and educational institution increases little, the author is too hasty to make the conclusion that funding for education is not a priority for most people who think educational institute is less in need of donations. Because funding for other charitable institutes does not mean thinking educational need is less, although they pay less money on it.

In sum, to better strengthen the passage, the author needs to provide detail information about the poll and the people who donate. （是不是应该详细写需要知道捐赠者/捐赠组织的成分情况？）Furthermore, the real reason influencing educational funding should be investigated further.

我很欣赏层层递进的驳论方式，显得有力量，而且自信——就算你在上一点合理好了，那这点就不合理了吧，就算你这点合理了，那点也不合理。
我觉得可以改进的地方就是加强细节的论述，不要一句话而过。我们要揪着他的小辫子狠狠的拽，哈哈。

[ 本帖最后由 SavileRow 于 2007-8-1 21:08 编辑 ]