超越自我小组~argument30 第三天...

啊拉UID: 2527432

题目：ARGUMENT30 - According to information recently reported in the Eliottown Gazette, the number of people who travel to Eliottown has increased significantly over the past several years. So far this year over 100,000 people have arrived on flights to Eliottown's airport, compared with only 80,000 last year and 40,000 the year before. Eliottown's train station has received more than 50,000 passengers this year, compared with less than 40,000 last year and 20,000 the year before. Clearly tourism in Eliottown has been increasing, thanks to the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art that opened last year. Therefore, the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly.
字数：417          用时：00:39:48          日期：2008-8-8 1:22:22

Giving examples, making comparison, the author of this argument tries every method to persuade us to believe that the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly in the Eliottoen Gazette (EG). If the government of EG takes the author’s suggestion, the officials of the government should give in their resignations.

The authors conclusion is based on that the Central Park (CP) and Museum of modern Art (MOMA) cause the increasing of tourism. But I cannot find the obvious connections between them in this argument. Other factors may also cause the increasing of tourism. For example, maybe EG held the Olympic Games last year so a lot of athletes and audiences from different nations came to see the game. I can also imagine that EG found a relic of miracle last year, which just like the great wall or the pyramid. So we can easily imagine that the raising numbers of tourism has no relation to the CP or MOMA.

Even if the increasing of tourism indeed caused by the open CP and MOMA, the author cannot explain why the funding for them should be increased significantly. From my point of view, it is totally unnecessary. As we know, the parks or museums always charge the visitor some money. Even if the charge is so small, as the author mentioned in the argument, the number of the visitors is really tremendous. So maybe the CP and the MOMA has already earned a lot of money. The government should place the money on other areas.  Or even if the CP and MOMA are free, the huge number of tourists suggests us that the condition or environments are already very nice in these places. Increasing the funding seems not a good idea because the possibilities above.

Finally, the increasing numbers of the so-called tourists also cannot be convincing. The author gives us a lot of numbers and a suggestion for them: clearly tourism in EG has been increasing. But I'm considering that were these people have arrived in EG all tourist? Maybe EG is a good place to live so more and more people choosing to live in the city every year. Or I can explain the situation: EG start building a big transfer station last year so a lot of people choose to change their planes or trains here, so the number of passengers increasing every year.

In sum, the argument has so many logical problems. I suggest the author to reconsider his/her conclusion.


第一次不用模板~写完感觉松了口气哈哈~终于写出自己的风格了...虽然表述不太清楚...=.=加油加油~

hyukiezhuUID: 2291070

(By)Giving examples,(and我也觉得改了之后没有之前强烈，我也很欣赏预期强烈的开头，但是好像两个名词性短语不能做定语吧？定语都应该是形容词性的吧，前边加上By可以做状语了，建议在问下别人) making comparison, the author of this argument tries every method to persuade us to believe that the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly in the Eliottoen Gazette (EG). If the government of EG takes the author’s suggestion, the officials of the government should give in their resignations.

The authors（author’s） conclusion is based on that the Central Park (CP) and Museum of modern Art (MOMA) cause the increasing of tourism. But I cannot find the obvious connections between them in this argument. Other factors may also cause the increasing of tourism. For example, maybe EG held the Olympic Games last year so a lot of athletes and audiences from different nations came to see the game. I can also imagine that EG found a relic of miracle last year, which just like the great wall or the pyramid. So we can easily imagine that the raising numbers of tourism has no relation to the CP or MOMA(我们也只能说是不一定有联系，而不是一定没有)
.
Even if the increasing of tourism indeed caused by the open CP and MOMA, the author cannot explain why the funding for them should be increased significantly. From（In） my point of view, it is totally unnecessary. As we know(known), the parks or museums always charge the visitor some money. Even if the charge is so small（charge能用small么?）, as the author mentioned in the argument(貌似没说现在charge少？), the number of the visitors is really tremendous. So maybe the CP and the MOMA has already earned a lot of money. The government should place the money on other areas.  Or(去掉) even if the CP and MOMA are free, the huge number of tourists suggests us that the condition or environments are already very nice in these places. Increasing the funding seems not a good idea because the possibilities above.
（这段内容有点乱，作者想驳的内容是：就算旅游人数增加是P,M带来的，也不应该增加费用。
这段的内容是：
1参观者负担了费用的。 2就算现在费用很少，但是旅游者很多。 3也许P,M已经赚了好多钱。4政府应该把钱放在别的地方。5就算都free了，人数证明了P,M条件已经足够好了。6增加钱不好。
1，2算是原因显然不充分，分了跟没分一样么。3的假设没有什么必要。4，5，6都是结论，5自身就自相矛盾，4和6还是重复的。）

Finally, the increasing numbers of the so-called tourists also cannot be convincing. The author gives us a lot of numbers and a suggestion for them: clearly tourism in EG has been increasing. But I'm considering（这个事态用的不好，不肯定） that were these people have arrived in EG all tourist? Maybe EG is a good place to live （in）（，） so more and more people choosing to live in the city every year. Or I can explain the situation: EG start building a big transfer station last year so a lot of people choose to change their planes or trains here, so the number of passengers increasing every year.（语法错误）

In sum, the argument has so many logical problems. I suggest the author to reconsider his/her conclusion.