【big fish】3月12日习作Argument158-----by Sansouci

SansouciUID: 2755036

Argument No.158
158.The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.


In this analysis, the arguer claims that there is no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restriction on the number of homes built near the sites. To substantiate the conclusion, the author cites a study reveal that only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes, which sample is a total of five sites and 300 people were examined. And the author admitted that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the current sample is too small in its size could hardly illustrate the assumption that there is no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restriction on the number of homes built near the sites. Because the author provides only a total of five trash-sites and 300 people samples of people living near the sites, however, the limited sample might not be representative of the whole general group. Thus we cannot accept the author’s conclusion that we need no restriction of the size of such sites in our state or to place any restriction on the number of homes built near the sites before the author could provide more statistic data about other people living near the trash sites.

Even if there is reliable for the study is, it is also unfairly assume that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Common sense that there is much detrimental material and badly odorous near the trash sites, especially when there is a long time the trash has stored. More or less the trash would lead unhygienic environment and harmful to human’s health, not lead only a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. So without such evidence the argument can be rejected out of hand.

Even if the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard, there is also unfairly assume that no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites. It is entirely possible that more trash sites be built lead to more people unhealthy due to the harmful materials lower the human immune system. Besides, there is no mention that our state has less garbage sites so that we need to amplify the size of such sites in order to satisfy the life need of residents.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the argument should have to give more statistics of other people living near the trash sites. Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence to rule out there is no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health even there is no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.

隐雾UID: 2776185

In this analysis, the arguer claims that there is no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restriction on the number of homes built near the sites. To substantiate the conclusion, the author cites a study reveal(ing) that only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes, which(?) sample is a total of five sites and 300 people were examined. And the author admitted that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
第一段纯粹重述了题目，只是用了转述的手法，这样的情况虽然ETS官方6分大作里也有过，但是纯复述而无问题指出的开头段是文章的败笔，即使最后一句很吊胃口地说它有多荒谬，也不如简单陈述这些谬误来得好。

First of all, the current sample is too small in its size could hardly illustrate the assumption that there is no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restriction on the number of homes built near the sites.(再次很强大地重述了原题，而且在段首这种重要的TS位置，希望楼主改掉这种危险的做法) Because(since比较好) the author provides only a total of (only在这里比较好)five trash-sites and 300 people samples of people living near the sites, however, the limited sample might not be representative of the whole general group. Thus we cannot accept the author’s conclusion that we need no restriction of the size of such sites in our state or to place any restriction on the number of homes built near the sites before the author could provide more statistic data about other people living near the trash sites.
本段结构和逻辑都很清楚

Even if there is reliable for the study is, it is also unfairly assume that(有这种用法吗) people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Common sense that there is much detrimental material and badly odorous near the trash sites, especially when there is a long time the trash has stored. More or less the trash would lead unhygienic environment and harmful to human’s health, not lead only a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. So without such evidence the argument can be rejected out of hand.

Even if the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard, there is also unfairly assume that no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites. It is entirely possible that more trash sites be built lead to more people unhealthy due to the harmful materials lower the human immune system. Besides, there is no mention(the argument doesn't mention较好) that our state has less garbage sites so that we need to amplify the size of such sites in order to satisfy the life need of residents.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the argument should have to give more statistics of other people living near the trash sites. Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence to rule out there is no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health even there is no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.

文章多次重复引用原题句子，而且没做大改动，显得此举比较匮乏。
文章结构完整，但是没有闪光点，大概因为论证泛泛，不够严密。模板句比较多……
建议对题目的剖析做得再深入些，毕竟，逻辑比结构更吸引ETS