我们的九月 第九次作业 a177

juzijuntuanUID: 2231815

The author recommends that the Civic Club- a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues- should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City, for the reasons that people who work but not live in the city cannot understand the business and politics of the city, and the residents as the taxes payer could make money best used to improve the city, besides, such restriction is unlikely to disappoint many nonresidents based on the experience neighboring city. But the recommendation is not persuadable in some aspects.

As the threshold matter, the author unfairly claims that people who work in the city but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city, since no evidence is provided in the argument to support it. It is possible that an expert of politics and business, though he is not the resident of the city, is familiar and hold a clear point of view with it and could give desirable advice to the city. Thus, it is unconvincing to consider the nonresident not understand the business and politics of the city.

Moreover, it is unpersuadable to state that the residents as the taxpayer understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. As the taxpayer, the residents are at the position to familiar with how the money is used, but it is not substantiated by any information that they truly understand how to make the money best used to improve the city. Perhaps they are not so good at programming or they have no interest in the issue. Therefore, such claim that resident s understand how to make good use of money of the city is questionable.

The last, the author is too hasty to conclude that such restriction on membership is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents, based on the experience of neighboring Elm City’s Civic Club. Since no detail information about the population of Elm City is offered, it is possible that the nonresident of the city is few or they are not disappointed for the little interesting in politics and business. Ascribing to the situation of Elm City not similar to the Oak City, the experience of Elm does not necessary adaptable to Oak. As a result, the restriction of Oak Civic Club is not surely disappointed to the nonresidents.

To sum up, the author recommend the restriction on the membership of the Civic Club to be the resident of the city only, based on the unpersuadable reasons that the nonresident cannot understand the business and politics of the city but the resident know how to make best used of the tax, and the nonresident will not disappointed to the restriction. If no further information is provided,  the argument will not convince me.

lanyelovemeUID: 2234077

The author recommends that the Civic Club- a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues- should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City, for the reasons that people who work but not live in the city cannot understand the business and politics of the city, and the residents as the taxes payer could make money best used to improve the city, besides, such restriction is unlikely to disappoint many nonresidents based on the experience neighboring city. But the recommendation is not persuadable in some aspects.

As the threshold matter, the author unfairly claims that people who work in the city but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city, since no evidence is provided in the argument to support it. It is possible that an expert of politics and business, though he is not the resident of the city, is familiar and hold a clear point of view with it and could give desirable advice to the city. Thus, it is unconvincing to consider the nonresident not understand the business and politics of the city.

Moreover, it is unpersuadable to state that the residents as the taxpayer understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. As the taxpayer, the residents are at the position to familiar with how the money is used, but it is not substantiated by any information that they truly understand how to make the money best used to improve the city. Perhaps they are not so good at programming or they have no interest in the issue. Therefore, such claim that resident s understand how to make good use of money of the city is questionable.

The last, the author is too hasty to conclude that such restriction on membership is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents, based on the experience of neighboring Elm City’s Civic Club. Since no detail information about the population of Elm City is offered, it is possible that the nonresident of the city is few or they are not disappointed for the little interesting in politics and business. Ascribing to the situation of Elm City not similar to the Oak City, the experience of Elm does not necessary adaptable to Oak. As a result, the restriction of Oak Civic Club is not surely disappointed to the nonresidents.

To sum up, the author recommend the restriction on the membership of the Civic Club to be the resident of the city only, based on the unpersuadable reasons that the nonresident cannot understand the business and politics of the city but the resident know how to make best used of the tax, and the nonresident will not disappointed to the restriction. If no further information is provided,  the argument will not convince me.

先赞一个！
行文清晰，不过第二，三段似乎有赘述的感觉。
作者的写作模板似乎已经成型，嗯，好好借鉴！