argument223 互拍吧:)

vickiguoUID: 196595

The following appeared as an editorial in one of Coleville's city newspapers.
'Even though a high percentage of Coleville City's businesses failed last year, we who live in Coleville City should keep in mind the fact that the Coleville region has attracted a great many new businesses over the last three years. It is well known that new businesses are, on average, much more likely to fail than are long-established ones, so the business failures should not be considered a sign of poor economic health. Indeed, many analysts regard the presence of a significant number of new companies among a region's businesses as a sign of economic health. Thus Coleville City appears to be in good, not poor, economic shape.'
------正文------
This editorial make a conclusion that even Coleville City’s (Cc) businesses failed last year, there should be still keeping in optimistic about Cc's economical situation. To support his argument, the arguer cites a common sense about new business, and some analysis. In my opinion, this editorial infests with several logical errors in some crucial aspects.

First and foremost, the editorial makes a significant logical error about the relationship between new business and the profitability, as the author says. It is true that the Coleville region maybe attract a great many new businesses last year, but the arguer provide little evidence to illustrate that the residents of Coleville region can benefit from the increasing new ones. By contrast, it is entirely possible that the new ones are in need of a great deal with financial support by the local government or other sponsors, hence it should be reassessed the speaker's saying that Coleville City's region attracting a great many new businesses correlates with the Cc’s profitability, let alone the results of the new-established ones are unknown, there is a risk in investing so many new business.

Further more, the arguer provide a common knowledge to say that the phenomenon of new businesses are much more likely to fail than are long-established ones, and he conclude that is not enough to prove the poor economic health. Provided this assertion is reasonable, can this case, for example, all of the new ones are losing their business, be explained? Therefore, if the new ones were established without a scrupulous detailed analysis, we can not accept such a explanation about new ones failed do not a sigh of economical dilemma and hence the business failures, which result in new businesses are much more likely to fail than are long-established ones on average, should not be considered a sign of poor economic health should be revaluated.

Indeed, the speaker is also failure of showing some facts to demonstrate the reliability as well as the fairness of many analysts, which he cited. Since we do not know the basic and fundament of his so-called analysis, such as who make them, and when they are carried out, it is dubious about any conclusion depending on them. And common sense tell us, the presence of a significant rewards of new companies among a region's businesses, rather than the number, as a sign of economic health.
Thus the perspective that Coleville City appears to be in good, not poor, economic shape is untenable.

In sum, the author failed to provide us some strong evidence to support his claim. To strengthen his argument, the author should use some new analysis in (1) the residents can benefit from the new businesses. (2) The failure of new businesses indeed is not a sign of poor economic environment.  (3) Some useful analysis to prove the relationship between new business and the economic shape.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-13 at 21:54 ]

cheche-diUID: 2118219

今天第一次正儿八经动手写，却恰好挑了个和楼主一样的题目，不顶可真是说不过去……不过之前连提纲都没写过，就和你商讨一下一个长句子吧：第三段最后一句我看了好几遍这个句子，总觉得有毛病，你要表达的是“如果new businesses是匆忙上马的，不能认为他们不是商业环境恶化的标志“，接下来那个which 指代不清，按语法来讲指的是explanation,但实际应该指代the new ones were established without a scrupulous detailed analysis.也许应该把这个长句中不同分句位置换一下：therefore, if the new ones were established without a scrupulous detailed analysis, which result in new businesses are more likely to fail than the long-established ones on average, we cannot accept such a explanation about new ones failed do not a sigh of economical dilemma and hence the business failures.我是觉得这样会明白一些？
还有一些小毛病，比如Since we do not know the basic and fundament of his so-called analysis ，这个analysis得复数，第二段By contrast, it is entirely possible that the new ones are in need of a great deal with（of？）financial support by the local government.
楼主不知道已经准备了多久？这是你的第几篇呀？我觉着自己写的怎么看都奇怪得很，明天改改也发上来吧，咱们交流一下？我找的错误和你的还不很一样。