argument216 "决战830拍砖组" 8月18日作业，超时了，请大家指教！

nanziUID: 2126362

Argument 216 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：28分32秒     472 words
从2005年7月18日20时53分到2005年7月18日21时28分
------题目------
The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement.
'Because of its spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate, Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire. As a bonus, housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Nevertheless, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. Retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average.'
------正文------
In this argument, the author asserts that Clearview(C) should be the top choice for those seeking a place to retire. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer reasons that housing costs in Clearview have had a significant declination, in addition, he/she cites the promises made by C's mayor about new programs to improve schools, streets and public services, and the fact that the number of physicians is far greater than the national average. Nevertheless, a careful examination would reveal how groundless it is.

First of all, the argument is based on a fallacy called hasty generalization. Only due to the declination of housing costs and estate taxes, and other specific factors, the author conspicuously concludes that Clearview is the best candidate for retirement place. There are far more estate standards to assess the priority of a place for retirement, among which may include: natural environment, traffic management, residents habiting conventions, and so on so forth. Lack such more exact evidence towards the foregoing aspects in C district and also a comparing process with other districts, the author cannot confidently range C district to be the "best" place for retirement.

In addition,  simply  depends on  the C mayor's promises, the author problematically conclude that schools, streets, and public services in C district can be improved in the future. However, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to support that this is the case, nor does he establish a causal relationship that the public services in Clearview can virtually and definitely be improved according to the C mayor's promises. Perhaps the promises is just some imagination or thinking, the realistic implement of such blueprint would confront solid difficulties. If so, the C mayor's promises has no realistic or pragmatic value to those who seek an entire place at all. Unless ruling out this and other possible factors, the author would not convince me that the C place will be improved in its public services.

The last but not least,  the mere fact that the number of physicians in the Clearview is far greater than the national average cannot contribute to the conclusion that Clearview is able to offer excellent health care as people grow older. The author fails to provide information about the quality and expertise of C’s doctors in all areas, and information concerning the facilities and comprehensive profession level of Clearview’s hospitals and clinics. Lacking such crucial evaluation standards of the medical care service in Clearview, no valid conclusion can be drawn about the quality of Clearview’s health care service.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better assess the argument, the author have to offer sufficient information concerning the natural environment, realistic public service convenience, and professional expertise of Clearview, the author would also have to indicate that other districts are not better than Clearview in these aspects.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-18 at 23:48 ]

BKRL1234UID: 2127835

In this argument, the author asserts that Clearview(C) should be the top choice for those (who is) seeking a place to retire. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer(和前面统一) reasons that housing costs in Clearview have had a significant declination, in addition(这个模版改一下吧，上次我就写了个conj在这里..这里缺少一个连词，或者断成两句也挺好的 后面直接The author also cites that...）, he/she cites the promises made by C's mayor about new programs to improve schools, streets and public services, and the fact that the number of physicians is far greater than the national average. Nevertheless, a careful examination would reveal how groundless it is.

First of all, the argument is based on a fallacy called hasty generalization. Only due to the declination of housing costs and estate taxes, and other specific factors, the author conspicuously(这词放这儿做什么讲？） concludes that Clearview is the best candidate for retirement place. There are far more estate standards to assess the priority of a place for retirement, among which may include: natural environment, traffic management, residents habiting conventions, and so on so forth. Lack（lacking） such more exact evidence towards the foregoing aspects in C district and also a comparing process with other districts, the author cannot confidently range C district to be the "best" place for retirement.

In addition,  simply  depends on  the C mayor's promises, the author problematically conclude that schools, streets, and public services in C district can be improved in the future. However, the arguer（注意人称统一） fails to provide any evidence to support that this is the case, nor does he establish a causal relationship （between n. and n.）that the public services in Clearview can virtually and definitely be improved according to the C mayor's promises. Perhaps the promises is just some imagination or thinking, the realistic implement of such blueprint would confront solid difficulties. If so, the C mayor's promises has no realistic or pragmatic value to those who seek an entire place at all. Unless ruling out this and other possible factors, the author would not convince me that the C place will be improved in its public services.

The last but not least,  the mere fact that the number of physicians in the Clearview is far greater than the national average cannot contribute to the conclusion that Clearview is able to offer excellent health care as people grow older. The author fails to provide information about the quality and expertise of C’s doctors in all areas, and information concerning the facilities and comprehensive profession level of Clearview’s hospitals and clinics. Lacking such crucial evaluation standards of the medical care service in Clearview, no valid conclusion can be drawn about the quality of Clearview’s health care service.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better assess the argument, the author have to offer sufficient information concerning the natural environment, realistic public service convenience, and professional expertise of Clearview, the author would also have to indicate that other districts are not better than Clearview in these aspects.
错误找的都是很主要的，分析也很好，整体上真没什么可改的。
无论结构，语言都非常好，字数也不少，而且才写了28分钟。
不过我除了这些又更值得我学习的地方，原来你每一篇开头结尾，包括中间每段开头都是一样的啊！值得借鉴........不过开头那个in addition一定要改一下。

nanziUID: 2126362

谢谢BKRL1234的建议。
写过的这几篇Argu形式上都在套用一个模板，确实有些单调。
我英语水平不好，主要是想把重点放在具体内容上......
时间还是需要掌握好，呵呵，我要多加练习了。

bythewayUID: 2120441

In this argument, the author asserts that Clearview(C) should be the top choice for those seeking a place to retire. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer reasons that housing costs in Clearview have had a significant declination, in addition, he/she cites the promises made by C's mayor about new programs to improve schools, streets and public services, and the fact that the number of physicians is far greater than the national average. Nevertheless, a careful examination would reveal how groundless it is.

First of all, the argument is based on a fallacy called hasty generalization.( 呵呵，真直白。不过你下面说的不叫 hasty generalization 吧。 ) Only due to the declination of housing costs and estate taxes, and other specific factors, the author conspicuously concludes that Clearview is the best candidate for retirement place. There are far more estate standards to assess the priority of a place for retirement, among  （ 应删。）which may include: natural environment, traffic management, residents habiting conventions, and so on so forth. Lack （应该是lacking吧。 ） such more exact evidence towards the foregoing aspects in C district and also a comparing process with other districts, the author cannot confidently range C district to be the "best" place for retirement.

In addition,  simply  depends on  the C mayor's promises, the author problematically conclude that schools, streets, and public services in C district can be improved in the future. However, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to support that this is the case （感觉不爽，用his assumption 好点吧）, nor does he establish a causal relationship that the public services in Clearview can virtually and definitely be improved according to the C mayor's promises. Perhaps ( 不用perhaps吧，本来就是阿 ) the promises is just some imagination or thinking, the realistic implement of such blueprint would confront solid difficulties. If so, the C mayor's promises has no realistic or pragmatic value to those who seek an entire place at all. Unless ruling out this and other possible factors, the author would not convince me that the C place will be improved in its public services.（还有一个能批得： 他一直在说改善得趋势，但是没说已开始得状况，要是现在的状况很差，那就要说清改善到什么程度，才能证明它的观点。当然也不是所又错误都要批，但我觉得这个更严重一点。）

The last but not least,  the mere fact that the number of physicians in the Clearview is far greater than the national average cannot contribute to the conclusion that Clearview is able to offer excellent health care as people grow older. （呵呵，经典的质量问题来了。）The author fails to provide information about the quality and expertise of C’s doctors in all areas, and information concerning the facilities and comprehensive profession level of Clearview’s hospitals and clinics. Lacking such crucial evaluation standards of the medical care service in Clearview, no valid conclusion can be drawn about the quality of Clearview’s health care service.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better assess the argument, the author have to offer sufficient information concerning the natural environment, realistic public service convenience, and professional expertise of Clearview, the author would also have to indicate that other districts are not better than Clearview in these aspects. （结尾总结的很全面，总体层次也挺好啊！结尾语言稍显罗嗦，精炼有力一些就好了。 总体挺赞的！）