argument216 4月作文小组4月6日第十三次作业 by寂寞樱花

寂寞樱花UID：2306511

TOPIC: ARGUMENT216 - The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement.

"Because of its spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate, Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire. As a bonus, housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Nevertheless, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. Retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average."
WORDS: 462          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-4-6

In this argument the author reaches the conclusion that people who retire should go to live in Clearview because of its spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate. The reason the author gives to support this conclusion is that the fallen housing cost in the past year and lower estate taxes in Clearview. Additionally, the author also cites the promise of Clearview's mayor and the number of physicians in Clearview as other evidences to intensify the recommendation. I find this argument is logically unconvincing in several respects.

First of all, the author has committed a fallacy called hastily generalization. Housing costs in Clearview fallen during the past year cannot be an evidence to show that Clearview is suit for retiring. There is no evidence to prove that the fallen will continue in the last years. And it is very possible that the housing cost there is more than other districts even it has fallen. The author's failure to investigate or even consider these possibilities renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.

Second, the reason those estate taxes are lower than neighboring towns is also problematic. The estate taxes are lower but maybe other taxes are much higher that other places. And even if all the taxes is lower in Clearview, it may mean the economy there is not so good, even the economy is not so important for people who retired, but the results related to retires due to depress economy maybe crucial. For example, the society may not be so peaceful, the environment there may be polluted, and some services may not be so convenient. If the author cannot rule out these possibilities, the conclusion that Clearview is suitable for retire will not convince me.

Finally, the promise of Clearview mayor cannot be grantee, the author gives no information about the promise, like how long will the promise be accomplished, perhaps it will be a time more than ten years or even the promise will not be practiced. What's more, the number of physicians is greater than the national average cannot mean excellent health care too. There is no information about the technique of the doctors or even what doctors they are. Maybe most doctors there is veterinarian or even if good physicians there is more than other places, it is also possible that the people there is more too.
So the author should give sufficient information about these problems before we accept the conclusion.

In sum, the argument is not convincing as it shows, the author should provide more information to grantee the housing cost in Clearview is lower than other places and the condition there is suit for retire. In addition, the author would have to give more concrete evidence to demonstrate the promise and health care as he claims.

CLVolkovUID：2305902

In this argument the author reaches the conclusion that people who retire should go to live in Clearview because of its spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate. The reason the author gives to support this conclusion is that(后面并没有跟主谓结构的句子，应该去掉) the fallen housing cost in the past year and lower estate taxes in Clearview. Additionally, the author also cites the promise of Clearview's mayor and the number of physicians in Clearview as other evidences to intensify the recommendation. I find this argument is logically unconvincing in several respects(aspects). (似乎这部分是需要用过去时态的，不过不确认）

First of all, the author has committed a fallacy called hastily generalization. Housing costs in Clearview fallen during the past year cannot be an evidence to show that Clearview is suit for retiring. There is no evidence to prove that the fallen will continue in the last years. And it is very possible that the housing cost there is more than other districts even (if) it has(had) fallen. The author's failure to investigate or even consider these possibilities renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect(suspicious).

Second, the reason those(?) estate taxes are(being) lower than neighboring towns is also problematic. The estate taxes are lower but maybe other taxes are much higher that other places. And even if all the taxes is lower in Clearview, it may mean(情态动词后面似乎不应该跟这种动词) the economy there is not so good, even the economy is not so important for people who retired, but the results related to retires due to depress economy maybe crucial. (这部分都是表推测，因而似乎应该较多地使用would, may, might这种动词)For example, the society may not be so peaceful, the environment there may be polluted, and some services may not be so convenient. If the author cannot rule out these possibilities, the conclusion that Clearview is suitable for retire will not convince me. (这部分的理由比较牵强。其实可以考虑的是：real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns)

Finally(毕竟last but not least已经被我用得有点烦了), the promise of Clearview mayor cannot be grantee(如果你是想说保证的话，应该是guarantee，不过这个词应该不如assured好), the author gives no information about the promise, like how long will the promise be accomplished, perhaps it will be a time more than ten years or even the promise will not be practiced. What's more, the number of physicians is greater than the national average cannot mean(doesn’t implicate? indicate?) excellent health care too(either). There is no information about the technique of the doctors or even what doctors they are. Maybe most doctors there is veterinarian or even if good physicians there is more than other places, it is also possible that the people there is more too.(in my opinion it’s been out of line)

So(Thus? As discussed above? Hence?) the author should give (more) sufficient(detailed?) information about these problems before we accept the conclusion(呃，这个不知道怎么评价，虽然似乎没有这样的搭配，不过如果有同义词典的话也许可以查一下有没有类似表述，或者用acceptable?).

In sum, the argument is not convincing as it shows(as analyzed here?), the author should provide more information to grantee the housing cost in Clearview is lower than other places and the condition there is suit for retire. In addition, the author would have to give more concrete evidence to demonstrate(我终于记起来有这么一个词了……) the promise and health care as he claims.

总体来看，有两处的假定显然比较过分了。虽然在上新东方的时候老师也要求我们举尽可能多的攻击点，然而毕竟Argument的攻击点能够找到两三个就可以了，我想还是找一些较为容易接受的要好一些