Argument117【0706G－~4而后生~小组】第5次作业 by nap 有拍必回

napUID: 196976

TOPIC: ARGUMENT177 - The 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 residents 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."
WORDS: 415->471          TIME: 0:25:06          DATE: 2007-3-18 Updated!

The author of the letter argues that membership in Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to the residents in Oak City. The author mentions the residents’ thought to the business and politics and how the money should be spent. Additionally the author reasons the nonresidents’ attitude to the restriction and then concludes that they should continue the restriction. However the decision should not be run since there are some flaws in the argument.
开头有问题，参照https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=134092帮我想想
The author provides no evidence to support that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. Though some people may not live in Oak City, it is possible that these people spend most of their time in working in Oak City and consequently they know how both business and politics run locally and what the details of them are. On the other hand, we can not guarantee that only the local residents know these processes since the author rule out the possibility that these residents do not care the local business and politics process for they have jobs out of the city.

In addition, the author make a false reasoning that only residents who pay city taxes understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. Despite local people paying city taxes, the common sense tells us that in most situations people who do not participate in the city construction are not likely to concern where the money is spent in. In contrast they only care what politics items are good for them while not where the budget come from.

Finally, the author makes a false analogy between the two kinds of attitudes of nonresidents to Oak City and Elm City's Civic Club. Though nonresidents in Elm City will not be disappointed, the attitudes of those in Oak City may be very different. For example, the politics atmospheres of Oak City and Elm City may be quite unlike. It is most likely that in Elm City the nonresidents only concern their own working conditions which are good at present and thus they do not tend to join the local Civic Club. On the other hand, the working situation for nonresidents may be very bad in Oak City. In this condition since the Civic Club has a restriction for nonresidents if such situation will not be changed the nonresidents may be disappointed.

In sum, the author fails to convince us that the argument is reasonable. If the author wants to reinforce the argument he must provide more evidence than before to support that only residents know the process of both business and politics. Additionally the author must convince us that the taxes payers care the money spending. Besides he also should make more analyzing the nonresidents' feeling in both Elm City and Oak City.

[ 本帖最后由 nap 于 2007-3-19 17:44 编辑 ]

hezhifei2008UID: 2233976

The author of the letter argues that membership in Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to the residents in Oak City. The author mentions the residents’ thought to the business and politics and how the money should be spent. Additionally the author reasons the nonresidents’ attitude to the restriction and then concludes that they should continue the restriction. However the decision should not be run since there are some flaws in the argument.也许是限时的原因，但这两个错误是不是可以说得再清楚点？

The author provides no evidence to support that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. Though some people may not live in Oak City, it is possible that these people spending a large partition of time in working in Oak City and consequently they know how both business and politics run locally and what the details of them are. On the other hand, we can not guarantee that only改成all好不好？ the local residents know these processes since the author rule out the possibility that these residents do not care the local business and politics process for they have jobs out of the city.

In addition, the author make a false reasoning that only residents who pay city taxes understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. Despite local people paying city taxes, the common sense tells us that in most situations people who do not participate in the city construction are not likely to concern where the money is spent in; in contrast they only care what politics items are good for them while not where the budget come from.

Finally, the author makes a false analogue between Oak City and Elm City's Civic Club. The politics atmospheres of Oak City and Elm City may be fairly different. It is most likely that in Elm City the nonresidents only concern their own working conditions which are good at present and thus they do not tend to join the Civic Club. On the other hand, the working situation for nonresidents may be very bad in Oak City. Since the Civic Club has a restriction for nonresidents if the situation will not be changed the nonresidents may be disappointed.什莫意思？OC条件不好和大家不加入ECCC和OCCCC有限制和disappointed有什莫关系吗？

In sum, the author fails to convince us that the argument is reasonable. If the author wants to reinforce the argument he must provide more evidence than before to support that only residents know the process of both business and politics. Additionally the author must convince us that the taxes payers care the money spending. Besides he also should make more analyzing the nonresidents' feeling in both Elm City and Oak City

insideUID: 2303230

The author of the letter argues that membership in Oak City's Civic Club should continue to be restricted to the residents in Oak City. The author mentions the residents’ thought to the business and politics and how the money should be spent. Additionally the author reasons the nonresidents’ attitude to the restriction and then concludes that they should continue the restriction. However the decision should not be run since there are some flaws in the argument.

The author provides no evidence to support that people who work in Oak City but live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. Though some people may not live in Oak City, it is possible that these people spending(spend) a large partition of time(中式。。。spell不知道有没有这个意思) in working in Oak City and consequently they know how both business and politics run locally and what the details of them are. On the other hand, we can not guarantee that only the local residents know these processes since the author rule out the possibility that these residents do not care the local business and politics process for they have jobs out of the city.

In addition, the author make a false reasoning that only residents who pay city taxes understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. Despite local people paying city taxes, the common sense tells us that in most situations people who do not participate in the city construction are not likely to concern where the money is spent in;（分号在英语里表示因果，后面接“相反”很怪） in contrast they only care what politics items are good for them while not where the budget come from.

Finally, the author makes a false analogue（你确定不是analogy,我一直当这个词用的。） between the two kinds of attitudes of nonresidents to Oak City and Elm City's Civic Club. Though nonresidents in Elm City will not be disappointed, the attitudes of those in Oak City may be very different. For example, the politics atmospheres of Oak City and Elm City may be quite unlike. It is most likely that in Elm City the nonresidents only concern their own working conditions which are good at present and thus they do not tend to join the local Civic Club. On the other hand, the working situation for nonresidents may be very bad in Oak City. Since the Civic Club has a restriction for nonresidents if the situation will not be changed the nonresidents may be disappointed.（这句结论的连词感觉怪，对非居民有限制的前面感觉应该是如果，而不是因为。）

In sum, the author fails to convince us that the argument is reasonable. If the author wants to reinforce the argument he must provide more evidence than before to support that only residents know the process of both business and politics. Additionally the author must convince us that the taxes payers care the money spending. Besides he also should make more analyzing the nonresidents' feeling in both Elm City and Oak City.


你的开头远没有到贴中所说的重复赘述的程度，我觉得完全可以。你觉得他们对引领文章有用就好。