argument177 三月考过一次的题 请大家拍拍,就快考了

lorraineyeUID: 2157370

3月10日决战鼎钧, 目前重点攻克三月新出现的argument,请大家指点!留链必回!!
ARGUMENT 177 - 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 556          TIME 0:25:00          DATE 2006-3-3

提纲:
1.非居民未必不了解OAK
2.错误类比
3.忽略了其他方法

In this argument, the proposal that the Civic Club should be restricted to Oak's residents is unpersuasive. Based on wrong understanding of residents and nonresidents of the city and unsound comparison between two cities, the argument would trigger the workers' dissatisfaction. I will analyze it as follows.

To begin with, the assertion that people who just work in Oak do not truly know the besiness, politics and development of the city is groundless. It is arbitrary to say that people work there could not understand the city as well as the residents. Assuming there is a man who work in Oak for thirty years and a man who just moved in there, it is no doubt that the former could know more about the city. So he is more qualified to discuss local issues in the club. In addition, although people who work in Oak but not live there do not pay city taxes, they could still well understand how the money should be used to develop the city. Their corporations have to pay taxes to the city, the improvement of Oak relates to the development of their corporations, so relates with themselves as well. Their living based on the city, it is nature that they would know how the tax money are best used. Furthermore, those people live in other cities, so they will comprehensively know the advantages and the disadvantages of Oak camparing with other places, so they are more likely to give useful suggestion about the city.

Moreover, neglecting to consider the possible difference between Elm and Oak, the arguer's conclusion that the restricting would not disappoint the nonresidents is arbitrary. It is possible that Elm is a small and remote city, and most of the workers there are also residents, so 25 is a big number for the nonresidents. And Oak is larger and open, a number of people work there but do not live there. So even if there is one percent of them would be disappointed, the total number is big. Granted that Elm is a big city with lots of nonresidents, probably most of them does not care about the city. But the situation in Oak is different. Nonresidents are mostly want to contribute to the city, and want to take part in the club. If this is the case, a number of people would annoyed by the restricting membership.

Finally, there are other better solution that the arguer fails to pay attention to. Besides absolutely restricting and open membership policy, other ways could also be considered. The Club could restrict the period of people live or work there, then it could guarantee that the members all care and understand Oak's condition well. This solution could ensure the qualified membership and the size of the club. Even if the arguer still want to restrict, it would be wiser to take a survey to know the attitude of the residents, the nonresidents, and the members of club. The results could indicate which is the best solution. Before knowing it, we could not convinced by the arguer's statement.

In conclusion, the argument is unsound. Simply keep the people who only work in Oak out of the Civic Club could not maximize the power and wisdom of all people who care about Oak. The arguer should collect more evidence to support the conclusion.

[ 本帖最后由 lorraineye 于 2006-3-3 22:20 编辑 ]

lorraineyeUID: 2157370

自己顶上去~

freda_xinUID: 2133401

提纲:
1.非居民未必不了解OAK
2.错误类比
3.忽略了其他方法

In this argument, the proposal that the Civic Club should be restricted to Oak's residents is unpersuasive. Based on wrong understanding of residents and nonresidents of the city and unsound comparison between two cities, the argument would trigger the workers'（是workers还是nonresidents?） dissatisfaction. I will analyze it as follows.

To begin with, the assertion that people who just work in Oak do not truly know the besiness, politics and development of the city is groundless. It is arbitrary to say that people work there could not understand the city as well as the residents. Assuming there is a man who work in Oak for thirty years and a man who just moved in(in去掉) there, it is no doubt that the former could know more about the city. So he is more qualified to discuss local issues in the club. （最好另起一段，一个错误批一段为好）In addition, although people who work in Oak but not live there do not pay city taxes, （用some of them会不那么决断）they could still well understand（这里是不是用know比较合适？） how the money should be used to develop the city. （加上连接词another,）Their corporations have to pay taxes to the city, (to some extent,)the improvement of Oak relates to the development of their corporations, so (it) relates with themselves as well. (Their living based on the city, it is nature that they would know how the tax money are best used.)(这句话会不会有点多余？) Furthermore, those people live in other cities, so they will comprehensively know the advantages and the disadvantages of Oak camparing with other places, so they are more likely to give useful suggestion about the city.

Moreover, neglecting to consider the possible difference between Elm and Oak, the arguer's conclusion that the restricting would not disappoint the nonresidents is arbitrary. It is possible that Elm is a small and remote city, and most of the workers there are also residents, so 25 is a big number for the nonresidents. And Oak is larger and open, a number of people work there but do not live there. So even if there is one percent of them would be disappointed, the total number is big. Granted that Elm is a big city with lots of nonresidents, probably most of them does not care about the city. But the situation in Oak is (perhaps) different. Nonresidents are mostly want to contribute to the city, and (they) want to take part in the club. If this is the case, a number of people would annoyed by the restricting membership.（这段论得精彩）

Finally, there are other better solution that the arguer fails to pay attention to. Besides absolutely restricting and open membership policy, other ways could also be considered. The Club could restrict the period of people live or work there, then it could guarantee that the members all care and understand Oak's condition well. This solution could ensure the qualified membership and the size of the club. Even if the arguer still want to restrict, it would be wiser to take a survey to know the attitude of the residents, the nonresidents, and the members of club. The results could indicate which is the best solution. Before knowing it, we could not convinced by the arguer's statement.(个人觉得这段有点画蛇添足，可能楼主没有看清文章的意思，文章开头说“OC市民俱乐部（“主要讨论本地事务”是一个插入语）的成员资格应该继续被限制在OC的市民”，其后整段讲的就是继续限制的理由，全文在讨论成员资格是否应该继续受限而不是讨论如何更好地讨论本地事务)
In conclusion, the argument is unsound. Simply keep the people who only work in Oak out of the Civic Club could not maximize the power and wisdom of all people who care about Oak. The arguer should collect more evidence to support the conclusion.

PS：好羡慕楼主的速度：），我总是时间上比较紧张。总地来说文章不错，但需要注意的是要尽量少用绝对性的表达，另外连词后就是整句，不要忘了主语哦。