Argument237【0806G-永不言弃小组】第七次作业 by worldbaby

worldbabyUID: 2272889

Argument237【0806G-永不言弃小组】第七次作业 by worldbaby
Data: 2008-01-25  Words:518   Time: 21:39-22:39237.
The following appeared as part of an article in a local Beauville newspaper. "According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to *relocate here."  

The argument above presents that the city of Dillton has stimulated its economic development and reduce its employment successfully through the decrease of corporate rates and other regulations mentioned. And hence the Beauville would follow the way of the city of Dillton in order to reach the same effect. After a serious scrutiny of the argument, it reveals that the argument suffers from several fallacies which make it unconvincing.
First of all, it is unfair to assign the fact that two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton to the city's government regulation. No evidence shows that the decreasing corporate tax rate and the favorable measures result in the movement of the two companies. A multitude of factors, such as convenient transportation, unmatchable natural resources, or low cost of labor force, materials and processing prices, even the climate factors were included. Consequently, without considering and ruling out aforementioned possibilities, the arguer can not bolster such idea.
Even assuming the causal relationship between the government regulations and the entry of the two companies is persuasive, it is unwarranted to establish the fact that the result of reducing employment is due to the companies' entry. No evidence is offered to support the assumption. To establish the relationship, other possible cases should be eliminated, such as the fact that the 300  employed people has been out of work for some time, or the reemployment of the 300 people did contribute to the raise of employment rate. It is also possible that the 300 people were responsible for some positions in other companies who turn to the new companies for higher salaries or promotion. If it is true, it will not result in the decrease of the unemployment rate. Without ruling out such cases, the arguer can not confidently get the conclusion.  
Finally, even if assuming the two causal relationships are logical and reasonable, it is hasteful to copy the same measures and then put them into practice in another city called Beauville. The arguer failsto compare the inherent differences between the city of Beauville and that of Dillton. Perhaps such actions are not effective in the Beaville due to a myriad of difference. It is possible that the corporate tax rate has already low enough in the city Beauville, or the commercial conditions there are not suitable for manufacturing companies’ development, including geographic atmosphere, education level of work force and relative fundamental facilities. Overall, the two cities may draw a oversimplified analogy. Without accounting for these possible dissimilarities, the arguer can not assume that what result in the city Dillton will bring the same result in the city of Beauville through the same regulations.
  In a word, the arguer fails to draw the conclusion since the whole reasoning were based on two faulty assumptions and a illogical analogy. To validate the result, the arguer need to eliminate several possible factors and then find the direct cause of the entry of the two companies and the decrease in the employment rate. As to using the experience of Dillton for referrence, the arguer should balance the successful precedent and the concrete situations in another city.

sunwei0UID: 2227404

The argument above presents that the city of Dillton has stimulated its economic development and reduce its employment(unemployment) successfully through the decrease of corporate rates and other regulations mentioned. And hence the Beauville would follow the way of the city of Dillton in order to reach the same effect. After a serious scrutiny of the argument, it reveals that the argument suffers from several fallacies which make it unconvincing.
这一段有问题，原文中根本没能证明Dilton成功的刺激了经济发展并降低了失业率，所以这么说是有逻辑错误的。原文中唯一能够承认的只有两点，第一就是Dilton降低了15%的税率并且为迁入企业提供好处，第二就是有两个企业在政策实施后18个月内迁了进来，并且雇佣了300个人。其中第一条是这篇文章的前提。文章得出的结论就是在这个前提下，Beauville可以很快的刺激其经济发展并降低失业率。在第一段里只要说明这个结论不成立就行了。另外我觉得你这段最后一句话完全不用说的这么委婉，直接说他totally nonsense就行了，然后说在后面会指出其中的一些错误就行了。

First of all, it is unfair to assign the fact that two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton to the city's government regulation. No evidence shows that the decreasing corporate tax rate and the favorable measures result in the movement of the two companies. A multitude of factors, such as convenient transportation, unmatchable natural resources, or low cost of labor force,materials and processing prices, even the climate factors were included.Consequently, without considering and ruling out aforementioned possibilities,the arguer can not bolster such idea.

Even assuming the causal relationship between the government regulations and the entry of the two companies is persuasive, it is unwarranted to establish the fact that the result of reducing employment is due to the companies' entry.No evidence is offered to support the assumption. To establish the relationship, other possible cases should be eliminated, such as the fact that the 300 employed people has been out of work for some time, or there employment of the 300 people did contribute to the raise of employment rate.It is also possible that the 300 people were responsible for some positions in other companies who turn to the new companies for higher salaries or promotion.If it is true, it will not result in the decrease of the unemployment rate.Without ruling out such cases, the arguer can not confidently get the conclusion.  

Finally, even if assuming the two causal relationships are logical and reasonable, it is hasteful to copy the same measures and then put them into practice in another city called Beauville. The arguer fails to compare the inherent differences between the city of Beauvilleand that of Dillton. Perhaps such actions are not effective in the Beaville due to a myriad of difference. It is possible that the corporate tax rate has already low enough in the city Beauville, or the commercial conditions there are not suitable for manufacturing companies’ development, including geographic atmosphere, education level of work force and relative fundamental facilities.Overall, the two cities may draw a(an)oversimplified analogy. Without accounting for these possible dissimilarities,the arguer can not assume that what result in the city Dillton will bring the same result in the city of Beauville through the same regulations.

In a word, the arguer fails to draw the conclusion since the whole reasoning were(was) based on two faulty assumptions and a(an) illogical analogy. To validate the result, the arguer need(needs) to eliminate several possible factors and then find the direct cause of the entry of the two companies and the decrease in the employment rate. As to using the experience of Dillton for referrence(reference), the arguer should balance the successful precedent and the concrete situations in another city.

这篇文章除去一些简单的语法和拼写错误之外，只有首段犯了些逻辑错误。但是中间各段虽然分别指出了题目中的逻辑错误，可是陈述的时候条理还不够清晰。我把我列的提纲写在下面，仅供参考

1.      认为降低15% 的税率和提供其他好处是导致两家公司迁入的原因。
   1）在一个地方设立公司需要先做市场调查，长期和短期的发展规划，选址等，在这期间甚至还需要和当地政府交涉以确定政府未来的政策是否有利于企业发展。即使确定了要在此地设立公司，也需要时间来准备硬件设施，甚至需要建设。同样，招募员工也需要较长的一段时间。而这些根本不可能在18个月的时间内完成。因此，这两家公司的迁入一定是在当地政府推出这项政策之前就已经决定迁入了。
   2）即便忽略时间上的因素，那么降低15%的税率和提供一些优惠条件是否就真的能够吸引公司的迁入呢？显然，答案是否定的。一个公司在意的不是税率降了多少，而是税率本身是多少；不是增加了多少好处和便利，而是总共能提供多少。
   3）就算Dilton提供的税率和好处确实比其它城市要低，是否在此地建立公司也要受当地的劳动力价格、市场大小、交通以及环境等多方面因素的影响。
2.      把两家公司的迁入和雇佣了300人等价于经济发展和降低失业。
   1）的确，这两家公司的迁入能够成为政府收入的新来源，但是这不能表示政府的收入因此而增加了。毕竟为了吸引新公司的迁入，政府降低了15%的税率，而且还要拿出大量的资金投入到为新公司提供好处等方面。另外，如果新的公司会带来环境污染，那么政府还要出钱治理。
   2）新迁入的公司确实雇佣了300人，然而这些人原本是处于失业状态的吗？如果这两家公司所雇用的员工大都是来自本地的其他公司，那么这甚至有可能会导致其他公司因缺乏人手而倒闭。这样不当不会减少甚至反而会增加失业率。
3.      忽略两城市差别和其他因素的影响
就算Dilton的政策真的吸引了公司的迁入，并且促进了经济发展，同时也减少了失业率，那么同样的方法在Beauville是否一定行得通呢？当然不是。也许在Dilton正是因为税率太高等问题阻碍了公司的迁入，而在Beauville却不存在这样的问题；也许在Dilton失业率本来就比较高，而在Beauville的闲置劳动力却很少；也许Dilton是一个以制造业为主的城市，而Beauville却是一个以旅游业为主的城市。


写的有点多，不能算提纲了，呵呵～

worldbabyUID: 2272889

  

The argument above presents that two manufacturing companies moved to the  city of Dillton because of the decrease of corporate rates and other regulations mentioned. And hence the Beauville would follow the way of the city of Dillton in order to stimulate the economic and reduce the unemployment. the argument is totally nonsense.

First of all, it is unfair assume a direct relationship that two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton due to the city's government regulation. No evidence shows that the decreasing corporate tax rate and the favorable measures result in the movement of the two companies. When relocating, a company need take a multitude of factors into consideration, such as convenient transportation, unmatchable natural resources, or low cost of labor force, materials and processing prices, even the climate factors were included.  Consequently, without considering and ruling out aforementioned possibilities, the arguer can not bolster such idea. Besides, there are still some doubtful facets. On the one hand, whether the employment of the 300 people contributes to the raise of employment rate? The argument does not mention the exact population and thus the conclusion is lack of basis, for it is possible that the population decreased in the last 18 months and hence the unemployment rate decrease. It is also possible that the 300 people were responsible for some positions in other companies who turn to the new companies for higher salaries or promotion.
  However, even if assuming the causal relationships are logical and reasonable, it is arbitrary to put the same measures into practice in another city called Beauville. The arguer fails to compare the inherent differences between the city of Beauvilleand that of Dillton. Perhaps such actions are not effective in the Beaville due to a myriad of difference. It is possible that the corporate tax rate has already low enough in the city Beauville, or the commercial conditions there are not suitable for manufacturing companies’ development, including geographic atmosphere, education level of work force and relative fundamental facilities.Overall, the two cities may draw an oversimplified analogy. Without accounting for these possible dissimilarities,the arguer can not assume that what result in the city Dillton will bring the same result in the city of Beauville through the same regulations.

In a word, the arguer fails to draw the conclusion since the whole reasoning was based on two faulty assumptions and an illogical analogy. To validate the result, the arguer needs to eliminate several possible factors and then find the direct cause of the entry of the two companies and the decrease in the employment rate. As to using the experience of Dillton for reference, the arguer should balance the successful precedent and the concrete situations in another city.

[ 本帖最后由 worldbaby 于 2008-2-15 20:45 编辑 ]

sunwei0UID: 2227404

嗯，修改得不错哦，和那个范文的思路差不多了～

另外说一点哦，第二段用first of all，后面可就对应不上了呀～