"为我所用"小组第十次作业argument177

rienziUID: 2402391

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: 451          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-4-3 21:58:38



    The arguer discussed that the membership of Oak City's Civic Club should be limited in those employed people who live in the Oak City. To support this conclusion, he shows us a few reasons. After careful scrutiny, it is not difficult to pick out some fatal fallacies from his reasons and discussion.
    First of all, the arguer tells us that the workers who work in Oak City but not a resident there can not truly understand the business and politics of the city. I think this statement is too assertive. The arguer put out this sentence as a reason to support his conclusion without any detailed explanation. I think something important has been omitted by him to think about. The arguer should make clear the educational conditions of those people who live in Oak City and those outside workers. If, extremely, the employed people who live in Oak City are all poor-educated, who can prove that the membership of these people can understand the city better then the outsiders? For more, those outside workers who have been working in Oak City certainly has a more clear understanding of it than those who only settled there not long before. For these reasons, excluding of those outsiders who have been employed there for long is obviously a wrong decision.
    Second, the arguer mentions that only the taxpayers in Oak City can decide how the money could be used best to improve the condition of the city. I think this reason can not stand on its ground either. Many factors of the city can not be understood deeply by the residents, for example, the traffic condition of the roads which lead people outside the city. The outsiders travels on these roads almost everyday and automatically can make a proper evaluation of them. And those outsiders can also bring new thought to the city. Some poor weakpoints can not be picked up without the comparison of Oak City to other cities. With all these reasons, the arguer's second reason is also ineffective to support his conclusion.
    The last, the arguer judges that the restricting membership can not lead to disappointing among the outsiders. To explain this judgment further, he compares the neighbouring city Elm to his own city. He presents that an open membership of Elm City's Civic Club can not bring twenty-five nonresidents to the club there. But he did not think about the specific number of outside workers in Elm City. If the number is very low, the result will not be weird for us to see.
    Given the discussion above, the arguer's conclusion is ineffective. More work should be done to support his conclusion or make him change his point of view.

jenniferganUID: 2443583

The arguer discussed that the membership of Oak City's Civic Club should be limited in those employed people who live in the Oak City. To support this conclusion, he shows us a few reasons. After careful scrutiny, it is not difficult to pick out some fatal fallacies from his reasons and discussion.
    First of all, the arguer tells us that the workers who work in Oak City but not a resident there can not truly understand the business and politics of the city. I think this statement is too assertive. The arguer put out this sentence as a reason to support his conclusion without any detailed explanation. I think something important has been omitted by him to think about. The arguer should make clear the educational conditions of those people who live in Oak City and those outside workers. If, extremely, the employed people who live in Oak City are all poor-educated, who can prove that the membership of these people can understand the city better then the outsiders? For more, those outside workers who have been working in Oak City certainly has a more clear understanding of it than those who only settled there not long before. For these reasons, excluding of those outsiders who have been employed there for long is obviously a wrong decision.
    Second, the arguer mentions that only the taxpayers in Oak City can decide how the money could be used best to improve the condition of the city. I think this reason can not stand on its ground either. Many factors of the city can not be understood deeply by the residents, for example, the traffic condition of the roads which lead people outside the city. The outsiders travels on these roads almost everyday and automatically can make a proper evaluation of them. And those outsiders can also bring new thought to the city. Some poor weakpoints can not be picked up without the comparison of Oak City to other cities. With all these reasons, the arguer's second reason is also ineffective to support his conclusion.
    The last, the arguer judges that the restricting membership can not lead to disappointing among the outsiders. To explain this judgment further, he compares the neighbouring city Elm to his own city. He presents that an open membership of Elm City's Civic Club can not bring twenty-five nonresidents to the club there. But he did not think about the specific number of outside workers in Elm City. If the number is very low, the result will not be weird for us to see.
    Given the discussion above, the arguer's conclusion is ineffective. More work should be done to support his conclusion or make him change his point of view.

文章结构不错，逻辑性可以
感觉对于其他可能性的地方说明不是很充分，可以再作补充

usayaUID: 2374023

Thearguer discussed that the membership of Oak City's Civic Club should belimited in those employed people who live in the Oak City. To supportthis conclusion, he shows us a few reasons. After careful scrutiny, itis not difficult to pick out some fatal fallacies from his reasons anddiscussion.(a strong beginning)
    First of all, the arguer tells us that the workers who work in OakCity but not a resident there can not truly understand the business andpolitics of the city. I think this statement is too assertive. Thearguer put out this sentence as a reason to support his conclusionwithout any detailed explanation. I think something important has beenomitted by him to think about. The arguer should make clear theeducational conditions of those people who live in Oak City and thoseoutside workers. If, extremely, the employed people who live in OakCity are all poor-educated, who can prove that the membership of thesepeople can understand the city better then the outsiders? For more,those outside workers who have been working in Oak City certainly has amore clear understanding of it than those who only settled there notlong before. For these reasons, excluding of those outsiders who havebeen employed there for long is obviously a wrong decision.(关于当地居民是否受到不良教育的问题,这也只能作为一种假设而存在,个人愚见)
    Second, the arguer mentions that only the taxpayers in Oak City candecide how the money could be used best to improve the condition of thecity. I think this reason can not stand on its ground either. Manyfactors of the city can not be understood deeply by the residents, forexample, the traffic condition of the roads which lead people outsidethe city. The outsiders travels on these roads almost everyday andautomatically can make a proper evaluation of them. And those outsiderscan also bring new thought to the city. Some poor weakpoints can not bepicked up without the comparison of Oak City to other cities. With allthese reasons, the arguer's second reason is also ineffective tosupport his conclusion.
    The last, the arguer judges that the restricting membership can notlead to disappointing among the outsiders. To explain this judgmentfurther, he compares the neighbouring city Elm to his own city. Hepresents that an open membership of Elm City's Civic Club can not bringtwenty-five nonresidents to the club there. But he did not think aboutthe specific number of outside workers in Elm City. If the number isvery low, the result will not be weird for us to see.
    Given the discussion above, the arguer's conclusion is ineffective.More work should be done to support his conclusion or make him changehis point of view.


总体上不错, 一些细微的地方需要改进