argument177 为我所用第十次作业

jenniferganUID: 2443583

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: 678          TIME: 00:39:18          DATE: 2008-4-5 10:09:52

According to the letter, the author concludes that membership in Oak City's Civic Club should  continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that those who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truely understand the business and politics of the city. Meanwhile, the arguer reasons that only residents pay city taxes and therefor only residents know how to spend the money to improve the city to the best. Moreover, the arguer assumes that this way will not disappoint most of the nonresidents employed in Oak City because only twenty-five nonresidents have joind the neighboring Elm City's Civic Club during the last ten years. In my point of view, a carefule examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is. I will discuss them in turn.

To begin with, the author assumes that people who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truely understand the business and politics of the city, I think the assume is radiculous. For one thing, as it is a controversial issue there must be a plenty of people who work in Oak City want to join the club, maybe they are interested in the club as it discuss local issues that can be relative to them to some extent. Maybe they have better ideas about the development of the city as they have experienced different cities. Second, the author does not have any evidence to show that they don't understand the business and politica of the city. Perhaps they work here for their business, as we know, business is an open action which need cooperation of all the people involve the issue, no matter they are residents or not. Third, what the author says about politic issues are more unconvincing. As thy work in the city, some politic policies may influence their transportation tools. For example, If the government of the city don't allowed outside cars drive into their city, they have to go to work by bus or train of course. Thus, the assumption that they have no ideas about the development of the city if actually wrong.

In addtion, even assuming the above statement is persuasive. The arguer fails  consider whether the residents or nonresidents can spend the money better. In common sense, I concede that peopel will pay more attention on the money which is earend by themselves, they must have a wish to use the money make their home city more better, but this does not mean that they can do it well. Such a complex and important thing usually only can do by some intelligent people, who are experienced of the construction of cities. Perhaps the nonresidents are more cautious about the money. So, the author cannot get to the assertion so hurry.

Moreover, the neighboring city's civic club is joined by little nonresidents cannnot indicate the situation of Oak City. Perhaps the nonresidents work in Elm City is no more than 25 people in the last ten years, then 100 percent of the nonresidents join in the club. The number of the nonresidents in the club cannot represent anything.

Even only a few nonresidents in Elm City take part in the civic club, it does not mean that only a few nonresidents in Oak City will join its club as well as them. Different city, different people, their concep and thought are different, too. If the author does not do any research about it, the above statement is of no reasons.

In sum, the argument is well-presented, but not well-reasoned. To better bolter it, the arguer should have to prove that those who work in Oak City but live elsewhere actually know little about the city's issues and they don't know how to spend the taxes best to improve the city. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to do a survey on the nonresidents who work in Oak City to show that only few of them want to join the club. Only in this way, can we be persuaded.

usayaUID: 2374023

According to the letter, the author concludes thatmembership in Oak City's Civic Club should  continue to be restrictedto people who live in Oak City. To support the conclusion, the arguerpoints out that those who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannottruely understand the business and politics of the city. Meanwhile, thearguer reasons that only residents pay city taxes and therefore onlyresidents know how to spend the money to improve the city to the best.Moreover, the arguer assumes that this way will not disappoint most ofthe nonresidents employed in Oak City because only twenty-fivenonresidents have joind the neighboring Elm City's Civic Club duringthe last ten years. In my point of view, a carefule examination of thisargument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is. I will discussthem in turn.(开头罗嗦了些,最好能再简化下)

To begin with, the author assumes that people who workin Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truely understand thebusiness and politics of the city, I think the assume is radiculous.For one thing, as it is a controversial issue there must be a plenty ofpeople who work in Oak City want to join the club, maybe they areinterested in the club as it discuss local issues that can be relativeto them to some extent. Maybe they have better ideas about thedevelopment of the city as they have experienced different cities.Second, the author does not have any evidence to show that they don'tunderstand the business and politica of the city. Perhaps they workhere for their business, as we know, business is an open action whichneed cooperation of all the people involve the issue, no matter theyare residents or not. Third, what the author says about politic issuesare more unconvincing. As thy work in the city, some politic policiesmay influence their transportation tools. For example, If thegovernment of the city don't allowed outside cars drive into theircity, they have to go to work by bus or train of course. Thus, theassumption that they have no ideas about the development of the city if(is)actually wrong.这一段论证的面很宽,很具体，赞

In addtion, even assuming the above statement ispersuasive. The arguer fails to consider whether the residents ornonresidents can spend the money better. In common sense, I concedethat peopel will pay more attention on the money which is earend bythemselves, they must have a wish to use the money make their home citymore better, but this does not mean that they can do it well. Such acomplex and important thing usually only can do by some intelligentpeople, who are experienced of the construction of cities. Perhaps thenonresidents are more cautious about the money. So, the author cannotget to the assertion so hurry.

Moreover, the neighboring city's civic club is joined bylittle nonresidents cannnot indicate the situation of Oak City. Perhapsthe nonresidents work in Elm City is no more than 25 people in the lastten years, then 100 percent of the nonresidents join in the club(千万不要举不合常理或很极端的例子). Thenumber of the nonresidents in the club cannot represent anything.

Even only a few nonresidents in Elm City take part inthe civic club, it does not mean that only a few nonresidents in OakCity will join its club as well as them. Different city, differentpeople, their concept and thought are different, too. If the author doesnot do any research about it, the above statement is of no reasons.

In sum, the argument is well-presented, but notwell-reasoned(这句话我也用到了,呵呵). To better bolter it, the arguer should have to provethat those who work in Oak City but live elsewhere actually know littleabout the city's issues and they don't know how to spend the taxes bestto improve the city. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have todo a survey on the nonresidents who work in Oak City to show that onlyfew of them want to join the club. Only in this way, can we bepersuaded.


优点不说了,缺点我也在上面用红笔写出来了,有个建议,以后传上来的时候麻烦先把拼写错误改掉哈