[原创]另外一篇：AA076 - ChaseDream

`This city should be able to improve existing services and provide new ones without periodically raising the taxes of the residents. Instead, the city should require that the costs of services be paid for by developers who seek approval for their large new building projects. After all, these projects can be highly profitable to the developers, but they can also raise a city's expenses and increase the demand for its services.

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

Recently, people are eager to participant a controversial discussion which appears in a local paper and mainly concerns about the resources of the costs of the city services. Some claim that the soaring costs should not be paid by tax payers who always have to bear the periodically raising taxes but instead by developers who seek approval for their large new building projects. Though it sounds a little meaningful to consider this advice, my opinion, after weighing the both sides of the argument, is clearly to opposite it. The conclusion could be drawn for the reason as follows:

On the one hand, most requests for the existing services improvement and for the new services increase are raised by the tax payer of a city. For instance, people always complain that the green trees and flowers are scared in view, the noises from the highway are too loud, and the pollution produced by new plants should be access, and so on. It is common sense and reasonable that who asks for development should pay for the costs of the development.

On the other hand, those developers who seek approval for their large new building projects are also the components of the tax payers, and further more are always the major part of the taxes contribution, thus, it is unjustified to require them to pay twice. It is more considerate to distribute the costs by the level of people's earning, which means get costs from the taxes.

Additionally, the assertion that the developers can be highly profitable to handle the projects is misleading, for the facts that it is usually to find a building projects prove to be unprofitable. Not all the projects in this city will end with success. Putting the costs of city services on these projects may accelerate their failure rates in fact, which are not what we hope to face.

As a result, the proposal which advices to move the costs of city to the developer instead of tax payer is unreasonable, and anyone who have considered this issue thoroughly will agree with me.

以下是引用happyfish0517在2005-6-19 13:06:00的发言：

********************

Date: 2005-6-19

Time: 9:23:18

Argument No.76

********************

Question:

The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.

********************

Your Answer:

Recently, people are eager to participant a controversial discussion which appears

participate吧？

in a local paper and mainly concerns about the resources of the costs of the city services. Some claim that the soaring costs should not be paid by tax payers who always have to bear the periodically raising taxes but instead by developers who seek approval for their large new building projects. Though it sounds a little meaningful to consider this advice, my opinion, after weighing the both sides of the

去掉

argument, is clearly to opposite it. The conclusion could be drawn for the reason as follows:

个人觉得这样写虽然也挺好但是可能不会符合resemble other full mark compositions 的要求。这样写有点象issue。建议还是说有几个逻辑问题如下这样比较好。

是不是要说scarce呢？

from the highway are too loud, and the pollution produced by new plants should be access, and so on. It is common sense and reasonable that who asks for

accessible

development should pay for the costs of the development.

As a result, the proposal which advices to move the costs of city to the developer instead of tax payer is unreasonable, and anyone who have considered this issue thoroughly will agree with me.

姐姐这篇文写的很赞，这个没有问题。但是感觉象是issue不象是argument呀。如果有时间的话可以细看一下800score。如果没时间那么就看这部分好了：

The difference between analysis of issue and analysis of argument is that reasonable people could differ on analysis of issue, but no reasonable person would absolutely support something in an analysis of argument question. When you are doing Analysis of argument questions, look for reasoning fallacies.
The stimulus
In the first part of the argument the writer tries to persuade you of their conclusion by referring to evidence. When you read the arguments in these questions, be on the lookout for assumptions and poor logical reasoning used to make a conclusion.
The question stem
Question stems will ask you to decide how convincing you find the argument. Yoy will be asked to explain why the argument is not convincing, and discuss what might improve the argument. For this task, you'll need to: first, analyse the argument itself and evaluate the use of evidence; second, explain how a different approach or more information would make the argument itself better( or possibly worse.)
Attack the argument
Each argument in the stem is intentionally loaded with fallacies that you should acknowledge and discuss. If you fail to find the more fundamental problems in the argument, you will not get a high score.
The purpose of the essay is for you to critique the reasoning of the argument. Your personal opinions are not relevant. While in the analysis of an issue you write your opinion on a subject, in the analysis of argument you write a logical critique of a flawed argument. Thus, the approaches to the two essays should be different.
Evaluate the argument
Pick out the flaws in the argument by identifying its weaknesses:
What is argument's conclusion?
What is the basis of the argument's conclusion?
Do you find the argument persuasive? What makes it persuasive or not persuasive?
What could be done to strengthen the argument?
What assumptions does the argument rely upon?
Finding errors
the usual suspects: common logical fallacies
These flaws also tend to occur in the critical reasoning section of the verbal GMAT, so your preparation here will benefit you when taking the verbal section.
The e-rater will look for how well you express that you have identified the logical reasoning flaws. When you find an error, specifically identify it in the essay "this is a biased-sample fallacy" The e-rater will detect that you have identified the errors in the argument and will favour your essay.

恩~我经常写着写着就不知道自己在写ISSUE还是ARGUMENT了...寒！写这篇AA的时候还考虑了一下到底要反对这个观点还是同意...汗！浪费了一分钟才发现...在写AA，非反对不可...