argument177 多拍有益!

duckyl35UID：201612

177The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.

"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club—a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues—should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only resident’s pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."


  In this argument, the arguer claims that the membership in Oak City’s Civic Club, of which primary objective is to discuss local issues-should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. To support the conclusion, the arguer indicates that only people who live in the city pay taxes and therefore only those residents understand how the money could best be used. Further more, the arguer also shows that the neighboring Elm City’s Club in the last ten years had only twenty-five nonresidents though they had an open membership policy. A careful examination will reveal several critical problems in this argument.
  In the first place, the arguer points out an assumption that people who work in Oak City but lives elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city, which is dubious. Common sense tells us those who work in the city or have more business interests in the city are always understands the city well whether they live here or not, because their interests have important relationship with this city which prompt them to understand or manipulate some relationship in this city. However, the arguer illustrates that residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents know how the money could be best used to improve the city. Dose any one who pay taxes can know how the money should be in best use? The arguer fails to consider the possibility that most taxes payer just some common residents, maybe they lack the systematical knowledge about economy and design, then the arguer’s statement is untenable.
  Secondly, the arguer establishes a wrong analogy between Oak City and Elm City. Even though the tow cities are neighboring, are they similar in each aspect? The arguer cites that only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City’s Club in the last ten years, but he fails to show any statistic to demonstrate the nonresidents rate in that city. Maybe those twenty-five people can representative all nonresidents in the city or they contribute much to the city. But in Oak City, the arguer shows no illustration about what the position those nonresidents hold, so it is too hastily to conclude that the Oak City’s Club should be restricted to people who work there but not live there.
  To sum up, the conclusion is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer should exclude the possibilities that nonresidents have more contribution to the city or they understand the city better than residents. In addition, we should adequately inform more about the Elm City, which is a proof for arguer’s establishing an analogy between those two cities.

;P

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-6 at 19:11 ]

sosoUID：194270

In this argument (这个就不用写了吧), the arguer claims that the membership in Oak City’s Civic Club, of which primary objective is to discuss local issues-should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. To support the conclusion, the arguer indicates that only people who live in the city pay taxes and therefore only those residents understand how the money could best be used. Further more, the arguer also shows that the neighboring Elm City’s Club in the last ten years had only twenty-five nonresidents though they had an open membership policy. A careful examination will reveal several critical problems in this argument.(restate的部分似乎有些太长了)

In the first place, the arguer points out(makes?) an assumption that people who work in Oak City but lives elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city, which is dubious. Common sense tells us those who work in the city or have more business interests in the city are always understands the city well whether they live here or not, because their interests have a important relationship with this city which prompt them to understand or manipulate some relationship in this city. However, the arguer illustrates that residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents know how the money could be best used to improve the city. Dose any one who pay taxes can(前面有一个does作谓语了) know how the money should be in best use? The arguer fails to consider the possibility that most taxes payer just some common residents, maybe they lack the systematical knowledge about economy(economics) and design, then(so?) the arguer’s statement is untenable.

Secondly, the arguer establishes a wrong(improper) analogy between Oak City and Elm City. Even though the tow(two) cities are neighboring, are they similar in each(every) aspect? The arguer cites that only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City’s Club in the last ten years, but he fails to show any statistic statistical datato demonstrate the nonresidents rate in that city. Maybe those twenty-five people can representative all nonresidents in the city or they contribute much to the city. But in Oak City, the arguer shows no illustration about what the position those nonresidents hold, so it is too hastily(hasty) to conclude that the Oak City’s Club should be restricted to people who work there but not live there.

To sum up, the conclusion is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer should exclude the possibilities that nonresidents have more contributions to the city or they understand the city better than residents. In addition, we should be adequately informed more about the Elm City, which is a proof for arguer’s establishing an analogy between those two cities.

Suggestion:
1.下次发帖最好列个大致的提纲，发帖前用word查一下
2.格式上段落间最好空格，这样清楚一些，开头不用空格

这篇文章我个人感觉整体上还可以，不过逻辑稍微有点乱，语言也要加强