argument14 居然超时了4分钟真是郁闷！写太长了！

zehuaUID：199246

看到逻辑错误，不说又不舒服，说了结果就超时了！511字！晕！
题目：消费者对超时蔬菜不满意，我们应该增加蔬菜种子种类的那个题。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
In this argument the arguer concludes that Green Thumb Gardening Center can increase their profits by greatly expanding the variety of vegetable seeds they stock for gardeners. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites a national survey that many consumers were dissatisfied with fresh vegetables in supermarkets. In addition, the arguer provides the evidence that the local gardening magazine Great Gardens has sold out at the Village News stand three months in a row. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless this argument is.

In the first place, the result of the national survey's indication that many consumers were dissatisfied with the quality of fresh vegetables in supermarkets does not necessarily mean that this is the case in the town where Green Thumb Gardening Center is located. Unless the arguer can provide more evidence that the situation in the local town typifies that of the nation, the statement is unconvincing. Moreover, even if people in the local town can typify that of the nation, the statement is still groundless in that the survey fails to tell us exactly what percent of consumers were dissatisfied. Therefore, unless the arguer could cite more details regarding the survey, his conclusion is unconvincing.

In the second place, the evidence that the local gardening magazine has continually sold out for three months provides no indication of whether the demand for private gardening is high. It is entirely possible that the circulation of this magazine is so low that a tiny group of readers can help it sold out. If this is the case, then we could not know how many local people could be the potential consumers of Green Thumb Gardening Center. Admittedly, circulation of this magazine could be high. Yet we cannot rule out the possibility that most of people who bought this magazine came from outside of the town.  If this is the case, then we are still not convinced how many potential customers that gardening center has.

In the third place, even if many people in this local town buy that magazine, there is no evidence that the gardening center could increase their profits by expanding the variety of vegetable seeds. Possibly, gardeners in the local area only consume one or two types of seeds, while they never purchase other kinds. It is equally possible that the potential purchasing power of gardeners in the local town is very low, because they have already purchased tons of seeds. If either of the above two possibilities is true, then Expanding the variety of seeds can not increase profits.

In conclusion, the arguer's statement commits of critical flaws. To convince me the validity of the statement, the arguer would have to provide more details of the national survey. To better assess this conclusion, I would also need more evidence about exactly who were the customers of that local magazine, and the circulation of it. In addition, I would need the number of local gardeners and know the potential purchasing power of them. Unless the above evidence are provided, the arguer's conclusion is unconvincing.

louchen1984UID：172975

第二段第一句太罗嗦，而且后面三句都在讲同一个意思吧，没有必要
最后一段commits of 用错了，
总体可以了，就是再写得简洁有力些，攻击点要找最有逻辑性的

zehuaUID：199246

Originally posted by louchen1984 at 2005-7-19 12:43
第二段第一句太罗嗦，而且后面三句都在讲同一个意思吧，没有必要
最后一段commits of 用错了，
总体可以了，就是再写得简洁有力些，攻击点要找最有逻辑性的

谢谢指点！commits of应该怎么用啊？
第二段第一句是太长了，可是怎么写短呢？除非分成2句？
后面三句都在讲同一个意思？ 没有吧。最后1句是说即使本地和全国情况相同，那么"MANY"到底是多少也不清楚。这和前面可不是一个意思吧？

tubageUID：149249

1，首段有点罗嗦
2，段落衔接过程中重复过多，而且语句缺乏变化
3，论述过程中，套话太多，辨证和推理少