- UID
- 714586
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-1-28
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
这篇的题目是：
“In each city in the region of Treehaven, the majority of the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the value they place on public education. For example, Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. It seems clear, therefore, that Parson City residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents.”
感觉应该挺好写的，结果写了1.5h,实在是太久了。而且怎么拖都拖不到500words以上，要怎么办啊！！！
In this letter, the author concludes thatParson City residents attach more significance on providing a good education inpublic schools than Blue City residents do. In support of this conclusion, theauthor points out that Parson City spent nearly twice as much tax revenues asBlue City on public schools recently. At first glance, the author’s argumentappears to be somehow plausible, while a close examination will reveal how groundlessit is. We do not have a look very far to see the invalidity of this argument. Theargument is problematic for the following reasons.
Firstly, the author employs a typical “allthings are equal” way of thinking in unfairly assuming that the recent trend canrepresent two cities’ consistent policies on funding public schools. Yet theauthor offers no evidence to substantiate this assumption. It is entirelypossible that during the past years Blue City has poured far more money intofacilitating public education. Thereby, the huge amount of initial investmentmakes the lately reduction of funding understandable. Without considering thispossible scenario, the author cannot justifiably conclude that Blue City residentscare less about public education.
Another logic flaw that could shed light onthe author’s argument is the flimsy premise that because the two cities havethe same number of residents, they should therefore budget the same amount ofmoney for each city’s public schools. In spite of the value residents place onpublic education, many other differences between Parson City and Blue City maycontribute to the differences in the amount of money they provide to the publicschools. For example, if there are fewer students who go to public schools inBlue City, too much budget for public schools is unnecessary. In that event,the fact that Blue City does not need to educate as many students as those inParson City, fails to imply that they care less about education in publicschools.
In addition, the data provided by theauthor in order to show the tax revenues spent in each city’s public educationsystem is quite vague. We are not informed how many the actual percentage ofthe total budget is used for public schools in each city. Perhaps, Parson Cityenjoys a higher tax income, the fund for its public education only accounts fora small portion while the absolute number is almost double of the fund in BlueCity. In short, the author’s ignorance on the fraction of the taxes that eachcity government collects, renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.
To sum up, the argument is not persuasiveas it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the author should demonstratehistorical records of funding public schools in each city, and rule out all possibilitiesthat Blue City may needn’t to pay as much as Parson City do. We would also needmore concrete evidence, including information about the two cities’ budgetaryplan and the percentage of the total tax income used in public education.
首先我有一个问题，就是这篇argument里的作者似乎只讲了一个reason来support他的conclusion哎，是这样吗？
然后，我知道有些句子蛮生硬的。。。总之，请大家重重的拍！！ |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-11-14 10:31:15
收藏
收藏
