argument177 为我所用小组第十次作业

guoshishuoUID: 2467577

TOPIC: ARGUMENT177 - The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.

"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. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."
WORDS: 537         TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2008-4-4 13:49:23

The author recommends that Oak City's Civic Club should continue to admit only those who live in Oak City to be their members. To support her recommendation, she provides several reasons. But since some logical flaws can be found in this argument, it is unconvincing as it stands.
To begin with, the author assumes that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city, which is dubious. She fails to offer any evidence to substantiate the assumption. It is entirely possible that those who only work in Oak City care more about the business and politics there because they care about how their future will be if they continue working in the city. Thus they will read newspaper and watch news on TV everyday to keep up with the new policies and economic developing of the city. So it is too hasty to get to the conclusion that because they do not live in the city, they also do not understand the business and politics of the city.
Secondly, the mere fact that only residents pay city taxes is of little indication that only they understand how to spend their money most effectively. Perhaps those who are not residents of the city but work there also care about the taxes' usages. The author also overlooks the possibility that they can bring their own cities' experience and give some constructive advices on the taxes' usages of Oak City. Consequently, the author cannot convince me that they should restrict the membership to the residents of the city relying on the reason that only residents understand the usages of the taxes.
Thirdly, the author claims that restricting the membership will not disappoint many of the nonresidents because in the neighboring city, despite the open membership policy, only twenty-five nonresidents have joined its club in the last ten years. Since the author has not provided the total number of the nonresidents in Elm City, it is unconvincing to arrive at the conclusion that most of them do not care about entering the club. Perhaps there are only 40 nonresidents there and 25 is really a high proportion. Even if it is true that most nonresidents do not care about being a member of the club in Elm City’s club, it is of no indication that it is the same case in Oak City because the author fails to offer any information about the two cities. Maybe they have lots of differences such as that the Oak City is a larger and more prosperous city where more nonresidents are working there. Thus the condition that only a small number of nonresidents enter the club in Elm City cannot be served as an evidence to show that this will also be the case in Oak City when considering the differences between the two cities.
In conclusion, the author’s recommendation is unconvincing. To better bolster it, she has to provide evidence to substantiate that the nonresidents actually do not understand the business and politics of the city as well as the usage of the taxes. Also, she should do more survey to show that the nonresidents will not be annoyed due to the restrictions.

jenniferganUID: 2443583

The author recommends that Oak City's Civic Club should continue to admit only those who live in Oak City to be their members. To support her recommendation, she provides several reasons. But since some logical flaws can be found in this argument, it is unconvincing as it stands.
To begin with, the author assumes that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city, which is dubious. She fails to offer any evidence to substantiate the assumption. It is entirely possible that those who only work in Oak City care more about the business and politics there because they care about how their future will be if they continue working in the city. Thus they will read newspaper and watch news on TV everyday to keep up with the new policies and economic developing of the city. So it is too hasty to get to the conclusion that because they do not live in the city, they also do not understand the business and politics of the city.
Secondly, the mere fact that only residents pay city taxes is of little indication that only they understand how to spend their money most effectively. Perhaps those who are not residents of the city but work there also care about the taxes' usages. The author also overlooks the possibility that they can bring their own cities' experience and give some constructive advices on the taxes' usages of Oak City. Consequently, the author cannot convince me that they should restrict the membership to the residents of the city relying on the reason that only residents understand the usages of the taxes.
Thirdly, the author claims that restricting the membership will not disappoint many of the nonresidents because in the neighboring city, despite the open membership policy, only twenty-five nonresidents have joined its club in the last ten years. Since the author has not provided the total number of the nonresidents in Elm City, it is unconvincing to arrive at the conclusion that most of them do not care about entering the club. Perhaps there are only 40 nonresidents there and 25 is really a high proportion. Even if it is true that most nonresidents do not care about being a member of the club in Elm City’s club, it is of no indication that it is the same case in Oak City because the author fails to offer any information about the two cities. Maybe they have lots of differences such as that the Oak City is a larger and more prosperous city where more nonresidents are working there. Thus the condition that only a small number of nonresidents enter the club in Elm City cannot be served as an evidence to show that this will also be the case in Oak City when considering the differences between the two cities.
In conclusion, the author’s recommendation is unconvincing. To better bolster it, she has to provide evidence to substantiate that the nonresidents actually do not understand the business and politics of the city as well as the usage of the taxes. Also, she should do more survey to show that the nonresidents will not be annoyed due to the restrictions.

写得很好！

rienziUID: 2402391

The author recommends that Oak City's Civic Club should continue to admit only those who live in Oak City to be their members. To support her recommendation, she provides several reasons. But since some logical flaws can be found in this argument, it is unconvincing as it stands.
To begin with, the author assumes that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city, which is dubious. She fails to offer any evidence to substantiate the assumption. It is entirely possible that those who only work in Oak City care more about the business and politics there because they care about how their future will be if they continue working in the city. Thus they will read newspaper and watch news on TV everyday to keep up with the new policies and economic developing of the city. So it is too hasty to get to the conclusion that because they do not live in the city, they also do not understand the business and politics of the city.
Secondly, the mere fact that only residents pay city taxes is of little indication that only they understand how to spend their money most effectively. Perhaps those who are not residents of the city but work there also care about the taxes' usages. The author also overlooks the possibility that they can bring their own cities' experience and give some constructive advices on the taxes' usages of Oak City. Consequently, the author cannot convince me that they should restrict the membership to the residents of the city relying on the reason that only residents understand the usages of the taxes.
Thirdly, the author claims that restricting the membership will not disappoint many of the nonresidents because in the neighboring city, despite the open membership policy, only twenty-five nonresidents have joined its club in the last ten years. Since the author has not provided the total number of the nonresidents in Elm City, it is unconvincing to arrive at the conclusion that most of them do not care about entering the club. Perhaps there are only 40 nonresidents there and 25 is really a high proportion. Even if it is true that most nonresidents do not care about being a member of the club in Elm City’s club, it is of no indication that it is the same case in Oak City because the author fails to offer any information about the two cities. Maybe they have lots of differences such as that the Oak City is a larger and more prosperous city where more nonresidents are working there. Thus the condition that only a small number of nonresidents enter the club in Elm City cannot be served as an evidence to show that this will also be the case in Oak City when considering the differences between the two cities.
In conclusion, the author’s recommendation is unconvincing. To better bolster it, she has to provide evidence to substantiate that the nonresidents actually do not understand the business and politics of the city as well as the usage of the taxes. Also, she should do more survey to show that the nonresidents will not be annoyed due to the restrictions.


这个可真是榜样啊