[逵逵写AWA-AA075]

75. The following appeared as part of a memorandum from a government agency.

“Given the limited funding available for the building and repair of roads and bridges, the government should not spend any money this year on fixing the bridge that crosses the laceName w:st="on">StyxlaceName> laceType w:st="on">RiverlaceType>. This bridge is located near a city with a weakening economy, so it is not as important as other bridges; moreover, the city population is small and thus unlikely to contribute a significant enough tax revenue to justify the effort of fixing the bridge.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The conclusion of this part of the memorandum is that it is unwise to fund repairs to the bridge located near a city with a deteriorating economy. The author addresses inadequate funding available as assumption

感觉作者这里不是把它作为假设而是一个证据

and cites that this city whose population is small is unlikely to generate considerable tax revenue. But这个转折有一点突兀 if we think this issue deeply, it is obvious that this argument suffers from two critical flaws listed below.

In the first place, up to author’s standard, the economic return is the only factor when the government decides whether to repairs to roads and bridges. However, the function of a government is not only to boost national economy, but also keep its citizens secure. I cannot image that any government will ignore its citizens’ personal safety, but seek economic return solely. If the bridge is on the edge of collapse, the situation not excluded,

这个是什么意思呢？

I surely believe that any responsible government will immediately set to fix the bridge to avoid a tragic bridge accident.

In the second place, another serious error in the author’s logic is confusion of efforts with results.

如果不是固定用法的话好象说confusing efforts with results比较好

It is entirely possible that the crucial handicap of developing the city is the disappointing transportation, such as this bridge. Take China as an example, in the program of West Development, we find that a large portion of western inland cities abound with fruits, coal, and iron and so on. But these cities richly endowed by nature are restricted by inconvenient transportation. Without governmental investment, individuals still do all they can to overcome traffic disadvantages.

是不是想说individual have to do all they can do to overcome traffic disadvantages while with little effect.

Now we are glad to see that these areas in which good traffic systems have been established present a different appearance and make a contribution to tax revenue.

Admittedly, the government should consider its yield from its

versus 会不会更好？

investment from economic angles. But as I mentioned above, government also should take efforts to prevent potential threat to citizens’ security.

Furthermore, the author does not consider that the change of transportation may play an important role in improving the economy of the city.  Hence, I think that the author’s view is not persuasive and more details should be presented for this argument.

75. The following appeared as part of a memorandum from a government agency.

“Given the limited funding available for the building and repair of roads and bridges, the government should not spend any money this year on fixing the bridge that crosses the laceName w:st="on">StyxlaceName> laceType w:st="on">RiverlaceType>. This bridge is located near a city with a weakening economy, so it is not as important as other bridges; moreover, the city population is small and thus unlikely to contribute a significant enough tax revenue to justify the effort of fixing the bridge.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The conclusion of this part of the memorandum is that it is unwise to fund repairs to the bridge located near a city with a deteriorating economy. The author addresses inadequate funding available as assumption and cites that this city whose population is small is unlikely to generate considerable tax revenue. But if we think this issue deeply, it is obvious that this argument suffers from two critical flaws listed below.

开头很好噢...不过个人感觉deeply不如thoroughly好~因为前者kind of babytalk而且deep有一部分远离中心的意思，deeply会受其影响，引起歧义。

In the first place, up to author’s standard, the economic return is the only factor when the government decides whether to repairs to roads and bridges. However, the function of a government is not only to boost national economy, but also to keep its citizens secure. I cannot image that any government will ignore its citizens’ personal safety, but seek economic return solely. If the bridge is on the edge of collapse, the situation not excluded, I surely/definitely believe that any responsible government will immediately set to fix the bridge to avoid a tragic bridge accident.

1、whether to do sth...要用动词原形；同时，repair好像vt的用法更普遍一些repair to改成repair更好一些。如果实在不确定，学原文用fix sth好了~~这句改成whether to repair/fix the roads and bridges比较好，加个the比较通顺，个人意见。

2、not only to do, but also to do...平行结构。

In the second place, another serious error in the author’s logic is confusion of efforts with results. It is entirely possible that the crucial handicap of developing the city is the disappointing transportation, such as this bridge. Take China as an example, in the program of West Development, we find that a large portion of western inland cities abound with fruits, coal, and iron and so on. But these cities richly endowed by nature are restricted by inconvenient transportation. Without governmental investment, individuals still do all they can to overcome traffic disadvantages. Now we are glad to see that these areas in which good traffic systems have been established present a different appearance and make a significant contribution to tax revenue.

highlight的地方，个人觉得改成take the situation in China as...,或者take the cities in China as...比较好...因为之后你并没有用中国和其他国家作比较，而是举中国内部的例子。anyway...it's not very important.

Admittedly, the government should consider its yield from its investment from economic angles. But as I mentioned above, government also should take efforts to prevent potential threat to citizens’ security. Furthermore, the author does not consider that the change of transportation may play an important role in improving the economy of the city.  Hence, I think that the author’s view is not persuasive and more details should be presented for this argument.