ARGUMENT177

zdjUID: 2303099

我只是按照ARGUMENT里论据的顺序写的。不知逻辑上有没有问题？请大家能批评一下这篇文章的结构。谢谢啦！有拍必回！
提纲
1.       提出论点
2.       the people who work in Oak City but  live elsewhere understood the business and politics of the city 两点1. the people who work in Oak City but  live elsewhere可能是生意人，他们对politics and business of the city理解很多。2.他们能从他们自己的角度提出对politics and business of the city的看法，这些都是有效的。
3.       nonresidents can understand how the money could best be used to improve the city两点1. nonresidents能够给出wise advice关于如何建设城市通过比较他住的城市和他工作的城市。2.作者不能给出证据如果Club 包括了nonresidents会对城市有不利。
4.       比较Oak City's Civic Club和Elm City's Civic Club存在很多问题。1. Elm City's Civic Club里有很少的nonresidents可能是因为Elm City里的nonresidents本来就少2. Elm City's Civic Club里有很少的nonresidents可能是由于Elm City不够开放然而Oak City可能正在执行开放政策。3. Elm City's Civic Club里的管理者很差可能是Elm City's Civic Club里有很少的nonresidents的原因
5.       得出结论
The arguer alerted that the Oak City's Civic Club should restrict his member among the people who live in Oak City. He elaborated it with the evidences that people, who live outside the city, can’t understand the politics and business of the city and haven’t paid tax so that they can't understand how the money could best be used to improve the city.At first glance ,it sounds very reasonable but clearly examined we can discover lots of fallacies in the argument .

First of all, it is arbitrary to get the conclusion that the business and politics of the city can't be truly understood by the people who work in Oak City but  live elsewhere .For one thing ,many people who work in Oak City but doesn't work there might be the businessmen. In order to improve their business, they must fully comprehend the business and politics of the city. For the other thing, these businessmen might have a complete different view about the business and politics of the city from their points and this view might board the vision of the Oak City's Club. In sum, the people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere might fully catch on the business and politics of the city.

In addition, it is also unreasonable to draw the causality that nonresidents can't understand how the money could best be used to improve the city because they don't pay the tax. On one hand, these nonresidents can give wise advice about how to build the city by comparing it with the city that they lives in. In this way, many creative ideas will be collected so that they can benefit the cities to the extent. On the other hand, the author didn't give any evidences to vindicate that if the nonresidents is included ,there are some disadvantages about how to spend the money. To conclusion, the cause and effect relationship is lack of fundament.

The last but not the lest, the comparison between Elm City's Civic Club and Oak City's Civic Club is open to doubt. Firstly, the fact that the Elm City's Civic Club have little nonresidents may result from the population of the total nonresident in the city which is small. Secondly, other alternatives include that Elm City is not open enough in the past ten years but the Oak City might have an open-up policy nowadays. Thirdly, the manager in Elm City's Civic Club might be not very suitable in the past ten years, which cause the nonresidents don't participate in their club. To sum up, the policy that restrict membership to city residents may have a bad influence toward the nonresidents who have a willing to take part in the club.

In conclusion, before unreasonably restricting the membership among the residents, the arguer should provide more details about the Elm City's Civic Club and make his argumentation more logical.