argument185 【challenge yourself小组】第一次作业 by springelf

springelfUID：2458536

OPIC: ARGUMENT158 - The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.
WORDS: 593          TIME: no time limited         DATE: 2008-7-24 19:40:45

提纲：
1.       样本和结论的问题
2.       论据自相矛盾
3.       并没有调查证明不限制垃圾场的规模和地点不会影响市民健康

In this argument, the speaker claims that the garbage sites near the people's home are or will not harmful for the people's health, and so no need to restrict the size and place of garbage sites. To support his assertion, he cites evidence that the study from Trash-Site Safety Council (TSSC) has draw conclusion that little people living near the garbage sites had the trash and no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Close scrutiny of these evidences, however, reveal that none of them lend credible supports to the declaration.

On the first glance, the speaker cites result of a recent survey from TSSC that only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. In order to evaluate the evidence of the survey, we have to consider how the survey was conducted. The sample of this study is only five garbage site and 300 people. Lacking information about the amount number of people living near the garbage sites and the garbage sites, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results. It is a relatively small number to draw a conclusion. So, the study cited by the speaker cannot convince me that the garbage sites are little relation to the rashes.

Second, the study’s conclusion is self-contradictory. On one side, it asserts that it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. On the other side, it tells us no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people’s health. And the causality between both sides is unwarranted. No evidence is offered to support this relationship. To establish this relationship, the speaker must provide more scientific evidence to persuade me. For example, how the conclusion is drew, whether the conclusion has statistics analysis or accurate data; whether other small trash sites has the same incidence as the largest one; and whether the conclusion is statistically valid. Without the statistics data, the speaker cannot bolster the conclusion.

Finally, the speaker fails to consider the other sickness result from the nearby garbage site. In the study, only the unexplained rashes have been examined. Yet, no evidence is provided to the rashes is the only healthy problem which can be caused by trash. On the other word, having no rashes is little indication that having other sickness. Perhaps, the people living near the garbage site will suffer the pneumonia, if it is the case, the harmful effects on people will be severe. Furthermore, the conclusion that no needs to restrict the size of trash site and the number of the home near the garbage site is too arbitrary. It is entirely possible that due to no restriction of size and number of the home, the people’s health condition will degenerate in the future. In short, the speaker cannot draw conclusion arbitrarily without consideration of various facts.

In conclusion, the assertion is simply not credible, at least based on the article. To convince me that the garbage sites have no harmful effect on people living near them and it is unnecessary to restrict trash size and the number of home near them, the author must provide clear statistical evidence that the study from TSSC is credible, no correlation between size of garbage and people’s health. Also, the speaker should provide the evidence that no other sickness will be caused by garbage except for rashes, and no restriction of garbage size will not cause the harm of health.

又臭又长，还没有限时~~大家凑合着看看吧~

xomaeUID：2468629

In this argument, the speaker claims that the garbage sites near the(people前加the特指民族) people's home are or will not harmful for the people's health, and so no need to restrict the size and place of garbage sites. To support his assertion, he cites evidence that the study from Trash-Site Safety Council (TSSC) (witch) has draw  conclusion that little people living near the garbage sites had the trash and no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Close scrutiny of these evidences, however, reveal that none of them lend credible supports to the declaration.

On(at) the first glance, the speaker cites (a) result of a recent survey from TSSC that only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. In order to evaluate the evidence of the survey, we have to consider how the survey was conducted. The sample of this study is only five garbage site and 300 people. Lacking information about the amount number of people living near the garbage sites and the garbage sites, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results. It is a relatively small number to draw a conclusion. So, the study cited by the speaker cannot convince me that the garbage sites are little relation to the rashes.

Second, the study’s conclusion is self-contradictory. On one side, it asserts that it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. On the other side, it tells us no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people’s health. And the causality between both sides is unwarranted. No evidence is offered to support this relationship. To establish this relationship, the speaker must provide more scientific evidence to persuade me. For example, how the conclusion is drew, whether the conclusion has statistics analysis or accurate data; whether other small trash sites has the same incidence as the largest one; and whether the conclusion is statistically valid. Without the statistics data, the speaker cannot bolster the conclusion.

Finally, the speaker fails to consider the other sickness result from the nearby garbage site. In the study, only the unexplained rashes have been examined. Yet, no evidence is provided to the rashes is the only healthy problem which can be caused by trash. On the other word, having no rashes is little indication that having other sickness(看不到懂，一起讨论哈). Perhaps, the people living near the garbage site will suffer the pneumonia, if it is the case, the harmful effects on people will be severe. Furthermore, the conclusion that no needs to restrict the size of trash site and the number of the home near the garbage site is too arbitrary. It is entirely possible that due to no restriction of size and number of the home, the people’s health condition will degenerate in the future. In short, the speaker cannot draw conclusion arbitrarily without consideration of various facts.

In conclusion, the assertion is simply not credible, at least based on the article. To convince me that the garbage sites have no harmful effect on(effect后跟人中间不加on吧)  people living near them and it is unnecessary (加上for them) to restrict trash size and the number of home near them, the author must provide clear statistical evidence that the study from TSSC is credible, no correlation between size of garbage and people’s health. Also, the speaker should provide the evidence that no other sickness will(虚拟语气would) be caused by garbage except for(except for后接的词同句子中的整体词不是同类的,去掉for) rashes , and no restriction of garbage size will not cause the harm of health.

springelfUID：2458536

1. the(people前加the特指民族),嗯，学习了~
2.On(at) the first glance，用on我记得是照北美抄的，我再去确定一下！
3.having no rashes is little indication that having other sickness(看不到懂，一起讨论哈)，嗯这个是我句子没有写对。…… is little indication that ……意思是：什么什么并不意味着什么什么。that后面应该用句子的，我弄错了。
4. effect on(effect后跟人中间不加on吧)  people ，这个我不清楚呢~回头问问大家吧。要是不清楚，我就把句子改成effect on heath of people living near....., 嘿嘿~
5. except for(except for后接的词同句子中的整体词不是同类的,去掉for) ，嗯，用的时候我还想了一下，初高中的东西，想不起来的。年纪大了~:vomit:

再次感谢小X同学的认真修改~:handshake

tongdawpUID：2500696

In this argument, the speaker claims that the garbage sites near the people's home are or will not harmful for the people's health, and so no need to restrict the size and place of garbage sites. To support his assertion, he cites evidence that the study from Trash-Site Safety Council (TSSC) has draw conclusion that little people living near the garbage sites had the trash and no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Close scrutiny of these evidences（evidence不可数）, however, reveal（动词第三人称单数） that none of them lend credible supports to the declaration.

On the first glance, the speaker cites result of a recent survey from TSSC that only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. In order to evaluate the evidence of the survey, we have to consider how the survey was conducted. The sample of this study is only five garbage site and 300 people. Lacking information about the amount number of people living near the garbage sites and the garbage sites, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results. It is a relatively small number to draw a conclusion. So, the study cited by the speaker cannot convince me that the garbage sites are little relation to the rashes.
(这段是要攻击样本不足，第一句作为主题句并没有说清这个目的，而是重述了原文的论据及结论，字数很多，但意义貌似不大，不如直接提出样本不足，然后展开攻击。)

Second, the study’s conclusion is self-contradictory. On one side, it asserts that it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. On the other side, it tells us no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people’s health.（此处是否是要转折？However感觉好些）And the causality between both sides is unwarranted. No evidence is offered to support this relationship. To establish this relationship, the speaker must provide more scientific evidence to persuade me. （上面三句好像是一个意思，只留一句就够了，虽然都是经典句式，但用多了效果并不好。）For example, how the conclusion is drew（被动语态drawn?）, whether the conclusion has statistics analysis or accurate data; whether other small trash sites has the same incidence as the largest one; and whether the conclusion is statistically valid. Without the statistics data, the speaker cannot bolster the conclusion.
（这段主要都用在攻击证据不足了，但是段首强调的是自相矛盾，似乎不太搭配。建议改说原文证据不足或者强词夺理。）

Finally, the speaker fails to consider the other sickness result from the nearby garbage site. In the study, only the unexplained rashes have been examined. Yet, no evidence is provided to（好像缺点什么，加上support that感觉好点）the rashes is the only healthy problem which can be caused by trash. On the other word, having no rashes is little indication that having other sickness. Perhaps, the people living near the garbage site will suffer the pneumonia, if it is the case, the harmful effects on people will be severe. Furthermore, the conclusion that no needs to restrict the size of trash site and the number of the home near the garbage site is too arbitrary. It is entirely possible that due to no restriction of size and number of the home, the people’s health condition will degenerate in the future. In short, the speaker cannot draw conclusion arbitrarily without consideration of various facts.
（前一半和后一半说的不是一个事，如果时间够的话，另开一段，如果不够，不如不写了，因为主题句只与前一半有关，而且前一半论证的已经很好了。）

In conclusion, the assertion is simply not credible, at least based on the article. To convince me that the garbage sites have no harmful effect on people living near them and it is unnecessary to restrict trash size and the number of home near them, the author must provide clear statistical evidence that the study from TSSC is credible, （缺连接词and）no correlation between size of garbage and people’s health. Also, the speaker should provide the evidence that no other sickness will be caused by garbage except for rashes, and no restriction of garbage size will not cause the harm of health.


总的说来，文章整体很工整，基本上都是经典的模式套用，而且句子也都是范文或者北美里的论证句式，但模仿的痕迹比较明显，个人感觉刻意模仿范文中的长句子，有时候会把字数弄得很多，但真正说理的只寥寥数语，道理还没说清，就超字数了。
对于各段分论点的论证，个人觉得作者需要把论点和论证结合好，一段的论证应该完全对应本段的论点，不要提出一个论点，读着读着发现论证的是另外的事。

这是我第一次评作文，基本就是按照在新东方上课时老师讲的一些注意事项再结合一下自己的一点点写作经验来评，希望能够和大家多多交流，共同进步。

springelfUID：2458536

1. (这段是要攻击样本不足，第一句作为主题句并没有说清这个目的，而是重述了原文的论据及结论，字数很多，但意义貌似不大，不如直接提出样本不足，然后展开攻击。) 嗯，这个说的很有道理，以后把TS简化一下，然后直接说样本问题~
2. .（此处是否是要转折？However感觉好些）嗯，这里是有转折的意思，我把它改成yet吧，however语气太强了，一篇文章里用一两次就好了
3.（上面三句好像是一个意思，只留一句就够了，虽然都是经典句式，但用多了效果并不好。）嗯，由于我第一句说的是自相矛盾，所以就觉得好像后面不说清楚如何自相矛盾就不好，如果象你说的，用证据不够什么的就不用说那么多废话了~学习了~
4.（前一半和后一半说的不是一个事，如果时间够的话，另开一段，如果不够，不如不写了，因为主题句只与前一半有关，而且前一半论证的已经很好了。）是的，我这一段本来想攻他没有考虑到的3、4点，然后都用一句话来说，这样子。后来写的时候发现我自己都想不出其他的点了，只好作罢了。:funk: 也许把这个调整到前面会好一写。
5. 小tong的总的评价给的也很好，我也不知道怎么才能不模仿~:vomit: 只是，其他的问题我会再以后注意的

再次感谢小tong的认真修改~:handshake

starter_123UID：2576008

Good language!

Visitor.