7 Augst ARGUMENT30

hyukiezhuUID: 2291070

The statement concludes that founding for the Central Park and the Modern Art Museum should be increase significantly with several reasons. However, in my opinion many of these reasons can be challenged and the conclusion of the speaker is also open to doubt.

Regarding the fist finding the speaker cites, the numbers of travelers by airline and railway increased sharply last year which is the most essential contributor of the tourism soar. In my opinion, however, we cannot find the necessary attachment between this reason and result. There is no evidence to indicate that people traveled to E only by the to traffic tools. There are other compelling methods to get E such as the high way which is very popular among fans of driving. There may be other factors lead to these result the speaker neglected. Maybe the condition of the road to E varied these years such as the maintaining of the road has problem or the charge of the road increased, more people change to use planes and trains is reasonable.

Secondly, the report in EG, the speaker mentioned is also difficult to be trusted for us. I have to question about the details of the report. What is the subject of it? When and where does it take? Who is the investigator and who is the interviewee? Because of all of these elements have not been definite, we cannot believe that the result of the report are property.

Thirdly, the speaker asserts that the new Central Park and the Museum of Modern Art has absorbed more visitors from outside E, which is not convectively by several reasons. On one hand, how wide the influence of the foundation of the two public facilities can be have not be proved apropos. Whether the publicity work have made all residents both in E and out known them. On the other hand, the popularity of the new park and museum has not been definite by the speaker that we should suspect about whether so many people’s journeys are aimed to them. Moreover, whether the increase should be significant is causeless. The amount of money should be estimate carefully in a reasonable extent.

In sum, to persuade us to believe that founding for the Central Park and the Modern Art Museum should be increase significantly, the speaker’s must give us more believable reasons which indicate that the increasing travelers are brought by the two new public facilities. In addition, make the given reasons more valid. I would rather like to get more detail information about the report made by EG and the two new public facilities.   

[ 本帖最后由 hyukiezhu 于 2008-8-7 16:06 编辑 ]

啊拉UID: 2527432

7 Augst ARGUMENT30

The statement concludes that founding for the Central Park and the Modern Art Museum should be increase significantly with several reasons. However, in my opinion many of these reasons can be challenged and the conclusion of the speaker is also open to doubt. (恩恩..开头不错…)Regarding the fist finding the speaker cites, the numbers of travelers by airline and railway increased sharply last year which is the most essential contributor of the tourism soar(什么叫tourism soar…不懂=.=). In my opinion, however, we cannot find the necessary attachment between this reason and result. There is no evidence to indicate that people traveled to E only by the to traffic tools. There are other compelling methods to get E such as the high way which is very popular among fans of driving. There may be other factors lead to these result the speaker neglected. Maybe the condition of the road to E varied these years such as the maintaining of the road has problem or the charge of the road increased, more people change to use planes and trains is reasonable. 和猴子出了一样的问题…这篇文章的目的是什么?对,第一段你提到了,是应该提高基金.那么这个所谓旅游人数的来源和目的有任何关系吗?即使有,也不是用这样单独的批驳方式…比如说我是阿狗的作者并且要说服省长提高这两个项目的基金,当我说完一堆话后省长突然来一句:这个旅游人数的来源应该还有很多方面才对啊….这样的话我肯定晕了…但是省长绝对会说:你这个建议是有问题的,因为首先来自这些地方的旅游人数是否都是被这两个地方所吸引….啊写太多了…纯属个人意见…

Secondly, the report in EG, the speaker mentioned is also difficult to be trusted for us. I have to question about the details of the report. What is the subject of it? When and where does it take? Who is the investigator and who is the interviewee? Because of all of these elements have not been definite, we cannot believe that the result of the report are property. (和上段一样…就算是我承认这个report是有一些问题,但对于我的目的来说有多大的动摇吗…我仅仅是想说服提高资金..况且这种report一般来说被认为是事实而不是观点,最好不要去质疑)Thirdly, the speaker asserts that the new Central Park and the Museum of Modern Art has absorbed more visitors from outside E, which is not convectively by several reasons. On one hand, how wide the influence of the foundation of the two public facilities can be have not be proved apropos. Whether the publicity work have made all residents both in E and out known them. On the other hand, the popularity of the new park and museum has not been definite by the speaker that we should suspect about whether so many people’s journeys are aimed to them. Moreover, whether the increase should be significant is causeless. The amount of money should be estimate carefully in a reasonable extent. (这段说道了重点…)In sum, to persuade us to believe that founding for the Central Park and the Modern Art Museum should be increase significantly, the speaker’s must give us more believable reasons which indicate that the increasing travelers are brought by the two new public facilities. In addition, make the given reasons more valid. I would rather like to get more detail information about the report made by EG and the two new public facilities.    (结尾没有问题,阿狗的结尾不重要~如果来不及就随便写两句,把重点放在前面的批驳上)

模板化其实不是很严重~~这是好事哦~逻辑链一定要理清,那些质疑了之后对作者的建议没有多大动摇的东西少讲,要讲也是放在最后讲…建议看下我昨天给你发的链接~应该在逻辑上有很大的启发~~当然这纯属个人建议…

[ 本帖最后由 啊拉 于 2008-8-8 17:34 编辑 ]