argument 3(the central plaza and skateboards)求批改

lyd911225 · 发表于 2012-11-3 23:45:29

In this argument, the author comes to a conclusion that the city should prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. To justify the claim, the author points out that the number of shoppers in central plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. The author also cites that the amount of litter and vandalism in Central plaza was increasing. The conclusion presented above is relatively sound at first glance. But close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects.

First and foremost, the store owners unfairly assume that it is the presence of skateboards that result in the decrease in their business. However, the author fails to provide a more defined correlation. It is entirely possible that one or more other factors were instead responsible for the decrease. Perhaps the price of the things in Central Plaza is deeply high or the discount is unsatisfied for the consumers. Again, the location is also important. Locating in a state with less low-income people and without other shopping malls counter is beneficial. Besides, the author fails to consider the influence of local economic and the attitude of the local consumers. Perhaps, the lapse of local economic leads to the aversion of going shopping. In short, without more information about the circumstances of the stores and consumers in central plaza, it is impossible to determine that the skateboards instead of other intrinsic factors that play an important part in determining the business of the stores.

In addition, the author mentions that there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza because of skateboards. Prohibiting skateboarding in central plaza can exactly solve this problem to some extent, but some side effects also exist, such as, less people coming to the plaza and so forth. Instead, measures can be taken to increase citizen’s environmental awareness by the name of the store owners. They can make lists on the wall warning citizens to keep our environment clean or lay several rubbish bins in the plaza. In this way, they can not only solve this problem, but also make a good impression on the citizens. Each scenario above would decrease the amount of litter and vandalism in Central plaza.

Finally, the author comes to a conclusion that if skateboarding is prohibited here, the business in Ventral Plaza will return to its previously high levels. But the author does not define the extent of the “high level”, for example, the lowest bound of the gross. Maybe over the last two years, the economic here was in a decline, with less money fluctuating in the marketplace. Although the amount of money has decreased, the central plaza may still be out-profiting his competitors. In fact, his relative sales are still in high level. Indeed, if the executive department take more other possibilities into account, the verdict will be more convincing.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument is invalid and misleading. Before making any decision, they have to make a overall survey about the profitability of the store and the popularity of skateboarding over the past two years exactly and taking every factors into consideration, such as the degree of satisfaction of the citizens.

普渡哥 · 发表于 2012-11-4 06:52:46

Before making any decision, they have to make a overall survey about the profitability of the store and the popularity of skateboarding over the past two years exactly and taking every factors into consideration, such as the degree of satisfaction of the citizens.

最后作者给出来的结论是再做一个survey, 怎么做这个survey呢？作出来就一定合理吗？

lyd911225 · 发表于 2012-11-4 11:53:47

我本意是在给出任何结论之前应该充分调查近两年central plaza的销售量变化情况，是一种怎样的衰减。才能做最后的决定。是最后一段应该给出具体的结论吗？还有，我想麻烦问一下前面的部分有什么问题吗？因为刚开始写，有什么注意的吗？

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-11-4 15:11:17

In this argument, the author comes to a conclusion that thecity should prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza
.To justify the claim, the author points out that the number of shoppers incentral plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboardinghas increased dramatically. The author also cites that the amount of litter andvandalism in Central plaza was increasing. The conclusion presentedabove is relatively sound at first glance. But close scrutiny of this argumentreveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects. （这种表述被很多人都用到过，可否换一个，另外这句话一般最好能照应到题目的instruction）

First and foremost, the store owners unfairly assume that it is the presence ofskateboards that results in the decrease in their business. However,the author fails to provide a more defined correlation. It is entirely possiblethat one or more other factors were instead responsible for the decrease.Perhaps the price of the things in Central Plaza is deeply high orthe discount is unsatisfied for the consumers. Again, the location is alsoimportant. Locating in a state with less low-income people and without othershopping malls counter is beneficial. Besides, the author fails to consider theinfluence of local economic and the attitude of the local consumers. Perhaps,the lapse of local economic leads to the aversion of going shopping. In short,without more information about the circumstances of the stores and consumers incentral plaza, it is impossible to determine that the skateboards instead ofother intrinsic factors that play an important part in determining the businessof the stores.这段话在不断地指出其他可能影响生意的因素，但始终回应滑冰对它的影响到底如何，如果怎样才可以排除或者确认滑冰对他们的生意的确有影响，否则你只说别的因素，还是不能否认滑冰对它的影响。

Inaddition, the author mentions that there has been a dramatic increase in theamount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza because of skateboards.Prohibiting skateboarding in central plaza can exactly solve this problem tosome extent, but some side effects also exist, such as, less people coming tothe plaza and so forth. Instead, measures can be taken to increase citizen’senvironmental awareness by the name of the store owners. They can make lists onthe wall warning citizens to keep our environment clean or lay several rubbishbins in the plaza. In this way, they can not only solve this problem, but alsomake a good impression on the citizens. Each scenario above would decrease theamount of litter and vandalism in Central plaza. 这段话你貌似是在说减少垃圾和损坏的其他办法，但问题是，滑冰者是否是制造垃圾和损坏的原因，这点要明确

Finally,the author comes to a conclusion that if skateboarding is prohibited here, thebusiness in Ventral Plaza will return to its previously high levels. But theauthor does not define the extent of the “high level”, for example, the lowestbound of the gross. Maybe over the last two years, the economic here was in adecline, with less money fluctuating in the marketplace. Although the amount ofmoney has decreased, the central plaza may still be out-profiting hiscompetitors. In fact, his relative sales are still in high level. Indeed, ifthe executive department takes more otherpossibilities into account, the verdict will be more convincing. 这里还需要谈到的是禁令是否必然带来繁荣，繁荣的影响因素有很多

Tosum up, the conclusion reached in the argument is invalid and misleading.Before making any decision, they have to make a overall survey about theprofitability of the store and the popularity of skateboarding over the pasttwo years exactly and taking every factors into consideration, such as thedegree of satisfaction of the citizens.

[作文互改] argument 3(the central plaza and skateboards)求批改

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()