argument107 渔船和娱乐船 好像没有出来过

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 107 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Seatown newspaper.

"Seatown has a large port exclusively for fishing boats, whose owners pay fees for the upkeep of the docks and for facilities for cleaning engines and repairing nets. In recent years, declining fish populations have decreased fishing revenue and forced many owners to stop fishing altogether. As a result, the port has a high vacancy rate and port managers are considering allowing pleasure boats, including cruise ships and other large vessels, to use the port in order to increase revenue. But allowing pleasure boats into the port would be a mistake, because the fishing boats would be forced out of the port. We should preserve the port for the fishing fleet, which, unlike pleasure boats, contributes to the prosperity of Seatown."
WORDS：469          TIME：0:29:48          DATE：2006-2-20

Prior to choosing to preserve the port for the fishing fleet for its contribution to the prosperity of Seaton, the evidence presented in this argument requires an in-depth scrutiny from several aspects, by doing which, I find that the author seems to have unduly relied on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions that render the author's conclusion fundamentally flawed.

The threshold problem with this argument is its establishment of unwarranted relationship between the prosperity of Seatown and the fishing industry. The mere fact that owners of fishing boats paly fees for the service offered by Seatown is insufficient to show that this income is the only source of profits in Seatown. In fact, it is entirely possible that Seatown is a bay that primarily relys on the other industries, say, factories that make seafood with the fish not only from Seatown but also from the neighboring bays. Since the author fails to respond to this concern, the assumption that the prosperity of Seatown must be attributable to fishing boats cannot convince me at all.

In addition, the author also illogically presumes that allowing pleasure boats to use the port would force the fishing boats out of the port, which, however, may not be the case either. For one thing, as mentioned in this argument, there is high vacancy rate in the port. In that case, we have sufficient reasons to assume that the vacancy rate is such high that the port could still have space to hold a large amount of boats even allowing pleasure boats in. If true, it would refute the author's assumption. For another thing, even assuming that there is not enough place for both fishing boats and pleasure boats, it would not necessarily indicate that fishing boats would be driven out. There is a good chance that the period for fishing is merely confined within autumn or winter while pleasure boats are put into use during spring or summer when most tourists would be presumed to come. Without taking into consideration these possibilities, the authenticity and credibility of this assumption cannot be justified.

Before coming to finish my analysis, we might as well turn our focus to the author's conclusion which unfairly assumes that pleasure boats would not benefit the Seatown. In fact, common sense tells us that the pleasure boats always bring more opportunities for the development of local economy since along with those boats tourists would come, purchase, consume local products or invest in local enterprises, all of which would undoubtedly precipitate the prosperity of Seatown. Hence, it is obviously not a wise decision to reject pleasure boats and thereby give up the beneficial opportunity.

To sum up, this argument is weakened by the flaws discussed above. Much work is needed before drawing a convincible conclusion; otherwise, the argument would be completely unfounded.

lawrence1984UID: 178326

argument107 渔船和娱乐船 好像没有出来过

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 107 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Seatown newspaper.

"Seatown has a large port exclusively for fishing boats, whose owners pay fees for the upkeep of the docks and for facilities for cleaning engines and repairing nets. In recent years, declining fish populations have decreased fishing revenue and forced many owners to stop fishing altogether. As a result, the port has a high vacancy rate and port managers are considering allowing pleasure boats, including cruise ships and other large vessels, to use the port in order to increase revenue. But allowing pleasure boats into the port would be a mistake, because the fishing boats would be forced out of the port. We should preserve the port for the fishing fleet, which, unlike pleasure boats, contributes to the prosperity of Seatown."
WORDS：469          TIME：0:29:48          DATE：2006-2-20

Prior to choosing to preserve the port for the fishing fleet for its contribution to the prosperity of Seaton, the evidence presented in this argument requires an in-depth scrutiny from several aspects, by doing which, I find that the author seems to have unduly relied on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions that render the author's conclusion fundamentally flawed.（主要驳斥无据假设问题，好！）

The threshold problem with this argument is its establishment of unwarranted relationship between the prosperity of Seatown and the fishing industry. The mere fact that owners of fishing boats paly fees for the service offered by Seatown is insufficient to show that this income is the only source of profits in Seatown. In fact, it is entirely possible that Seatown is a bay that primarily relys on the other industries, say, factories that make seafood with the fish not only from Seatown but also from the neighboring bays. Since the author fails to respond to this concern, the assumption that the prosperity of Seatown must be attributable to fishing boats cannot convince me at all.（这段在驳斥捕鱼业和繁荣没有关系这个驳斥点，很好！）

In addition, the author also illogically presumes that allowing pleasure boats to use the port would force the fishing boats out of the port, which, however, may not be the case either. For one thing, as mentioned in this argument, there is high vacancy rate in the port. In that case, we have sufficient reasons to assume that the vacancy rate is such high that the port could still have space to hold a large amount of boats even allowing pleasure boats in. If true, it would refute the author's assumption. For another thing, even assuming that there is not enough place for both fishing boats and pleasure boats, it would not necessarily indicate that fishing boats would be driven out. There is a good chance that the period for fishing is merely confined within autumn or winter while pleasure boats are put into use during spring or summer when most tourists would be presumed to come. Without taking into consideration these possibilities, the authenticity and credibility of this assumption cannot be justified.（这点也驳斥的很全面，我没有注意到这个点，鼓掌……）

Before coming to finish my analysis, we might as well turn our focus to the author's conclusion which unfairly assumes that pleasure boats would not benefit the Seatown. In fact, common sense tells us that the pleasure boats always bring more opportunities for the development of local economy since along with those boats tourists would come, purchase, consume local products or invest in local enterprises, all of which would undoubtedly precipitate the prosperity of Seatown. Hence, it is obviously not a wise decision to reject pleasure boats and thereby give up the beneficial opportunity.（这段相对于上面两段相对逊色，可以把娱乐船只的引入对于经济的影响说得更详细！）

To sum up, this argument is weakened by the flaws discussed above. Much work is needed before drawing a convincible conclusion; otherwise, the argument would be completely unfounded.
总的来说，这篇写得还是很好的，基本没有语法和句式用词上的纰漏，逻辑也很完整，argument到这个地步已经很好了。

[ 本帖最后由 lawrence1984 于 2006-2-20 12:25 编辑 ]

爱格UID: 2103778

Prior to choosing to preserve the port for the fishing fleet for its contribution to the prosperity of Seaton, the evidence presented in this argument requires an in-depth scrutiny from several aspects, by doing which, I find that the author seems to have unduly relied on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions that render the author's conclusion fundamentally flawed.

The threshold problem with this argument is its establishment of unwarranted relationship between the prosperity of Seatown and the fishing industry. The mere fact that owners of fishing boats paly fees for the service offered by Seatown is insufficient to show that this income is the only source of profits in Seatown. In fact, it is entirely possible that Seatown is a bay that primarily relys on the other industries, say, factories that make seafood with the fish not only from Seatown but also from the neighboring bays. Since the author fails to respond to this concern, the assumption that the prosperity of Seatown must be attributable to fishing boats cannot convince me at all.

In addition, the author also illogically presumes that allowing pleasure boats to use the port would force the fishing boats out of the port, which, however, may not be the case either. For one thing, as mentioned in this argument, there is high vacancy rate in the port. In that case, we have sufficient reasons to assume that the vacancy rate is such high that the port could still have space to hold a large amount of boats even allowing pleasure boats in. If true, it would refute the author's assumption.( For another thing, even assuming that there is not enough place for both fishing boats and pleasure boats, it would not necessarily indicate that fishing boats would be driven out. There is a good chance that the period for fishing is merely confined within autumn or winter while pleasure boats are put into use during spring or summer when most tourists would be presumed to come. )这个假设个人认为举的有些勉强，请问渔船和游船闲置的时候把他们放在哪呢？另外没有理由只有秋冬两季捕鱼春夏两季观光吧?如果非要这么说建议先在前面给个范围“如果在该港在高纬度地区，则可能•••” 可能是本人没有理解好你这里a good chance的意思，请浅析Without taking into consideration these possibilities不知道是不是楼主从gre阅读里学来的表示法，但至少我在字典里没见过这种用法，建议改成taking these possibilities into consideration, the authenticity and credibility of this assumption cannot be justified.

Before coming to finish my analysis, we might as well turn our focus to the author's conclusion which unfairly assumes that pleasure boats would not benefit the Seatown. In fact, common sense tells us that the pleasure boats always bring more opportunities for the development of local economy since along with those boats tourists would come, purchase, consume这几个字罗列的不好，既不是时间顺序也够不上并列，还意思缀叠 local products or invest in local enterprises, all of which would undoubtedly precipitate the prosperity of Seatown. Hence, it is obviously not a wise decision to reject pleasure boats and thereby give up the beneficial opportunity.

To sum up, this argument is weakened by the flaws discussed above. Much work is needed before drawing a convincible conclusion;按照经典的方法这里好像应该具体提出改善意见，不知这里是不是楼主的独到之处？ otherwise, the argument would be completely unfounded.
总的评价就是：佩服！文笔好地很！拜读了您的大作真长了见识，原来话还可以这么说～
学习之！以后看见楼主的文章还来交流
有空也希望楼主给我点指点，照您差的远呢:argument170

[ 本帖最后由 爱格 于 2006-2-20 14:23 编辑 ]