argument68 [0710G 戴三个表冲刺小组] 第四次作业

斯普特尼克UID: 2171287

random的一篇，试了一下
花了差不多4分钟读题，把逻辑理了一些开始喷
所以理所应当的超时了（无出息男）！


TOPIC: ARGUMENT68 - The following appearedin a memo from a budget planner for the City of Grandview.

"To avoid a budget deficit next year,the City of Grandviewmust eliminate its funding for the Grandview Symphony. Our citizens are wellaware of the fact that while the Grandview Symphony Orchestra was struggling tosucceed, our city government promised annual funding to help support itsprograms. Last year, however, private contributions to the Symphony increasedby 200 percent, and attendance at the Symphony's concerts-in-the-park seriesdoubled. The Symphony has also announced an increase in ticket prices for nextyear. Such developments indicate that the Symphony can now succeed withoutfunding from city government and we can eliminate that expense from next year'sbudget. This action will surely prevent a budget deficit."
WORDS: 592          TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2007-7-31 下午 11:52:30

The author claims that in order to avoid a budget deficit next year, the funding of the Grandview Symphony must be eliminated, and the author gives some factors to support his conclusion. At the first glance, with the given evidences in this statement, this topic is somewhat convincing and reasonable. Nonetheless, after a deep examination and taking more factors into account, many errors in this statement are revealed and I will prove how groundless this topic is below.

In the first place, we can reach to the point easily in this passage that the author's intention - eliminate the funding of the orchestra, based on his conclusion that the orchestra will earn enough money itself and no more funding support is needed. However, theseevidences cannot prove that the orchestra can get profit. Firstly, the giveninstances indicate that orchestra received more than 200 percent privatedonation than the year before last year, but the exact number of the donationis not given in the passage. Without knowing the number of this funding,therefore, we cannot lead to the conclusion that it is a lot of money and willdo fulfill the orchestra’s need. Furthermore, other instances that the price ofthe orchestra increased and the visitors doubled also cannot be the evidence insupporting the conclusion - the orchestra is or will get more profit and to surviveitself in the market. Maybe the increased price is still in a low level andeven doubled or higher price is not enough to get profit? Without theseevidences, we cannot get the conclusion that the orchestra need no funding inthe future.

In the second, suppose that the orchestra couldget profit with the increased ticket profit and the contribution from theindividuals is in a large scale. The conclusion is still weaken by some factorsoutside this statement and the author ignored these significant points. Noevidence can be indicated that temporary donation and the increased ticketprofit could maintain the orchestra in the next several years and in thefuture. It is possible that the donation is just temporary, and the success ofthe orchestra will keep and the audience will also support it since. We cannothasty role this plan without a exact study to the management of this orchestra,otherwise, we could lose a excellent orchestra in our city.

In the third place and it also the last,the final intention of this statement is clear - to prevent a budget deficitfor City of Grandview.It is reasonable and essential that a City's government try its best to keepthe stabilization of the budget and run the city better. Nevertheless, theauthor just locate the major of the contradiction to the funding given to theGrandview Symphony but he does not gives any data or document or whatever somethingto indicate that the money for running this orchestra could influence thebudget to a big extent and will finally lead to the deficit. We can supposethat this funding is just a tiny deal and even could be ignored compare withother payouts of the city's government.

     To sum up, for the reason that the author build his conclusion on the suspect evidences andlacking of enough data to the income and payout both in the orchestra and government,we cannot accept this statement till he solve the point above I have mentionedand rebuild the plan. Hasty action will lead to the residents’ dissatisfactionand may be the collapse of a outstanding orchestra to the city.

[ 本帖最后由 斯普特尼克 于 2007-8-1 01:26 编辑 ]

nifeiUID: 2340954

TOPIC: ARGUMENT68 - The following appearedin a memo from a budget planner for the City of Grandview.

"To avoid a budget deficit next year,the City of Grandviewmusteliminate its funding for the Grandview Symphony. Our citizens arewellaware of the fact that while the Grandview Symphony Orchestra wasstruggling tosucceed, our city government promised annual funding tohelp support itsprograms. Last year, however, private contributions tothe Symphony increasedby 200 percent, and attendance at the Symphony'sconcerts-in-the-park series doubled. The Symphony has also announced anincrease in ticket prices for nextyear. Such developments indicate thatthe Symphony can now succeed withoutfunding from city government and wecan eliminate that expense from next year'sbudget. This action willsurely prevent a budget deficit."
WORDS: 592          TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2007-7-31 下午 11:52:30

The author claims that in order to avoid a budget deficit next year,the funding of the Grandview Symphony must be eliminated, and theauthor gives some factors to support his conclusion.At the first glance, with the given evidences in this statement, thistopic is somewhat convincing and reasonable. Nonetheless, after a deepexamination and taking more factors into account, many errors in thisstatement are revealed and I will prove how groundless this topic isbelow.
开头感觉不错. 我参考你的弄个模板你不会介意吧......

In the first place, we can reach to the point easily in this passagethat the author's intention - eliminate(eliminating) the funding of the orchestra,based(还是觉得别扭,要不跟lz群里见吧.) on his conclusion that the orchestra will earn enough money(by)itself and no more funding support is needed. However, theseevidencescannot prove that the orchestra can get profit. Firstly, thegiveninstances indicate that orchestra received more than 200 percentprivatedonation than the year before last year, but the exact number ofthe donation is not given in the passage. Without knowing the number(exact quantity) ofthis funding,therefore, we cannot lead to the conclusion that it is alot of money and willdo fulfill the orchestra’s need. Furthermore,other instances that the price ofthe orchestra increased and thevisitors doubled also cannot be the evidence insupporting theconclusion - the orchestra is or will get more profit and tosurviveitself in the market. Maybe the increased price is still in alow level andeven doubled or higher price is not enough to get profit?Without theseevidences, we cannot get the conclusion that the orchestraneed no funding inthe future.(这句话的言外之意可以是:with these evidences, we can get the conclusion that....??)

In the second(不认为有这个用法,加place), suppose that the orchestra couldget profit with(from) theincreased ticket profit and the contribution from theindividuals is ina large scale. The conclusion is still weaken by some factorsoutsidethis statement and the author ignored these significant points.Noevidence can be indicated that temporary donation and the increasedticketprofit could maintain the orchestra in the next several years andin thefuture. It is possible that the donation is just temporary, andthe success ofthe orchestra will keep and the audience will alsosupport it since. We cannothasty role this plan without a exact studyto the management of this orchestra,otherwise, we could lose aexcellent orchestra in our city.

In the third place and it also the last,the final intention of thisstatement is clear - to prevent a budget deficitfor City ofGrandview.It is reasonable and essential that a City's government try(tries)its best to keepthe stabilization of the budget and run(s) the citybetter. Nevertheless, theauthor just locate(s) the major of thecontradiction to the funding given to theGrandview Symphony but he doesnot gives any data or document or whatever somethingto indicate thatthe money for running this orchestra could influence thebudget to a bigextent and will finally lead to the deficit. We can supposethat thisfunding is just a tiny deal and even could be ignored compare(ing) withotherpayouts of the city's government.

     Tosum up, for the reason that the author build his conclusion on thesuspect evidences andlacking of enough data to(of) the income and payoutboth in the orchestra and government,we cannot accept this statementtill he solve(s) the point(s) above I have mentionedand rebuild(s) the plan.Hasty action will lead to the residents’ dissatisfactionand may be thecollapse of a outstanding orchestra to(of) the city.

我先有个问题想问lz:北美范文上说按照错误出现顺序攻击, 那个牛人点睛里面说按照主要错误次要错误的顺序写,你怎么想?我倾向后者.
关于argument的逻辑结构,鉴于我到现在为止只写了一篇,实在不知道应该怎么写,所以只敢挑挑我认为的语法错误,抱歉了.

小结下lz的攻击点:
1.资金来源的数目不确定,不能保障不需要;
2.资金来源不一定持久;
3.取消对乐队的支持,不一定能保证没有财政赤字.

这篇argu我找不到最致命的逻辑错误, 如果是现实生活我会攻击它言而无信, 我觉得这个才是硬伤......