Argument151 有拍必回

乳虎UID: 2251211

151The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper.

提纲：
1作者错误的假设当初桥修的宽些好些就不会出交通问题。
2作者错误的将两座桥简单对比。
3作者没有考虑到Atticus City的发展可能出乎Former Mayor Durant的预料。


"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."


In this argument, the arguer claim that former Mayor Durant awes an apology to the city of Atticus because of his Negligence and wastefulness of Dorant. In order to supourt his or her critic, the arguer cites that the bridge engender many traffic problems and  deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years. The arguer reasons that if the bridge had been built wider, there would be no those problems and Former Mayor Durant is attribuable to the mistake. In my opinion, it is not fair to fomer Mayor Durants.

In the first place the arguer falsely assumes that if Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, none of the traffic problem would occurred. In fact there are many factors might account for to the traffic problems. Maybe there are too many cars and walkers on the bridge so than the bridge become too crowded. It is also possible that to many people traverse the bridge. Either scenario, if true, might offset the increase of bridge’s width and the improvement of bridge’s designation.

In the second place, the arguer simply compare the River Bridge with Derby Bridge. Commonsense informs that there are many factors might influence the speed of a bridge to deteriorate, not only the length. Maybe there are much more traffic on the River Bridge than on the Derby Bridge, which will render the River Bridge deteriorate faster than the Derby Bridge. Because the Failure of the arguer to take account into and eliminate those alternative explanation, he or she is doomed to fail to make any sound critic.

Last but not the least, the arguer’s critic rely on a poor assumption that Durant can predict the development of Accitus city. It is totally possible that when the bridge was bridge, the place where it located is the frontier of the city, and there were not so many cars and people passing the bridge, so it was not necessary to build a wider and better-designed bridge. Nevertheless, as the development of Accitus city, the place gradually became the center of the city, therefore there are too many cars and people passing the bridge. In that case, Durant is not to blame.

To sum up, the arguer commits a series of logical flaws which make his or her critic not fair. In order to consolidate it, the arguer must persuasive us that if Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, none traffic problem would occur. In addition the arguer must ensure other factors of the River Bridge and the Derby Bridge the same. To better access the critic, we should know whether Durant can envision the development of Atticus city.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-7-29 23:20 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."


In this argument, the arguer claim that former Mayor Durant awes an apology to the city of Atticus because of his Negligence and wastefulness of(negligence of指无视什么事情, wastefulness? waste on吧, 造桥带来的浪费, 这种概括如果没把握精确表达原意的话不妨就笼统写by approving the construction of Durant, 何况你后面的in order to等于和这种说他错误的信息重复了) Dorant. In order to supourt his or her critic, the arguer cites that the bridge engender many traffic problems and  deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years. The arguer reasons that if the bridge had been built wider, there would be no those problems and Former Mayor Durant is attribuable to the mistake. In my opinion, it is not fair to fomer Mayor Durants.(这句赞, 没有套模版上some flaws...而是针对题目给出了中心句, 使文章的论证方便很多.)

In the first place the arguer falsely assumes that if Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, none of the traffic problem would occurred. In fact there are many factors might account for to the traffic problems. Maybe there are too many cars and walkers on the bridge so than the bridge become too crowded. It is also possible that to many people traverse the bridge. Either scenario, if true, might offset the increase of bridge’s width and the improvement of bridge’s designation. (这些原因作者没有排除, 而且如果是人流太大的话宽度增加自然可以解决少量问题, 即使不能全部解决, 就是说它即使不能offset the width, 也是可以improve the bridge的. 因此你这里举它因应该举和宽度等设计并列的桥因素, 比如说过桥管理麻烦, 桥处于交通高峰地段, 城市整体的规划有问题, 等等, 这样无论桥造多宽不解决这些问题桥还是不好用, 比如城市规划如果把交通往引向这里使桥一直处于满负荷运转, 那么桥越宽来的车越多, 反而损耗越厉害. 你把它因找到前一层逻辑层次上, 然后到offset那也没给细节, how to offset? 这个过程没说清楚, 使得本段的论证不成立)

In the second place, the arguer simply compare the River Bridge with Derby Bridge. Commonsense informs that there are many factors might influence the speed of a bridge to deteriorate, not only the length. Maybe there are much more traffic on the River Bridge than on the Derby Bridge, which will render the River Bridge deteriorate faster than the Derby Bridge. Because the Failure of the arguer to take account into and eliminate those alternative explanation, he or she is doomed to fail to make any sound critic.(这段就给了一个它因, 说many factors很牵强, 而且你的语法错误也不少, 单复数不分, 另外doomed是完蛋的意思, 用这不合适.)

Last but not the least, the arguer’s critic rely on a poor assumption that Durant can predict the development of Accitus city.(先解释再举例, 上来就totally possible使你显得一点立场也没有, 文章看上去就是通篇猜测. 而且这里模版痕迹太重, 作者提出了这个假设么? 作者压根没说, 只能说作者忽视了这个问题而已) It is totally possible that when the bridge was bridge, the place where it located is the frontier of the city, and there were not so many cars and people passing the bridge, so it was not necessary to build a wider and better-designed bridge. Nevertheless, as the development of Accitus city, the place gradually became the center of the city, therefore there are too many cars and people passing the bridge. In that case, Durant is not to blame.(跟当时的市长又是什么关系? 点到你的中心句--it is not fair for the former Mayor. 说明那时的市长没能力预见这种情况, 错误不在他, 换了任何人在那个位置可能都预见不了. 另外这段的出发点也显得跟前文脱节, 建议开头让步假设桥的确有缺点, 然后再说换谁来盖都一样, 而且这项目未必是市长经手, 市长也不是专家, 该道歉的是桥梁设计师, 城市规划师, 城市建设局等等, 总之这道题可说的地方还很多)

To sum up, the arguer commits a series of logical flaws which make his or her critic not fair. In order to consolidate it, the arguer must persuasive us that if Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, none traffic problem would occur. In addition the arguer must ensure other factors of the River Bridge and the Derby Bridge the same. To better access the critic, we should know whether Durant can envision the development of Atticus city.

总评:
主题句的把握不错, 但后文几乎没有好好利用这个主题句, 两个并列的论点说桥不一定差都没总结到这个中心出发点, 应该指出作者的两个论据都不能说明是桥本身的设计问题, 而第三个论点的引导和组织不利, 开头没有让步, 而且用了没有信息量的并列式引导词-last but not the least, 这种词对你的文章组织一点好处也没有, 用李笑来的话说"firstly, secondly, finally, 你的文章就ugly", 注意不同逻辑层次, 非并列的段落不要用这种引导词, 破坏文章的整体性.
另外论据很多没用到位, 怎么能证明论点, 怎么使作者的论点无效都需要进一步说明. 建议看下北美的段落内组织, 如何利用论据去说明论点.