新g Argu 61 求拍~（我知道这篇问题有点大。。）

ykhjy

61) The following appeared in an article in the Grandview Beacon.
For many years the city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony. Last year, however, private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. The symphony has also announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. Given such developments, some city commissioners argue that the symphony can now be fully self-supporting, and they recommend that funding for the symphony be eliminated from next year's budget.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

In this article, the writer recommends to eliminate funding for the Grandview Symphony from next year's budget. Based on the evidences concerning the development of the symphony that private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled, in addition, the symphony has also announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. All these seem to show that the symphony could be fully self-supporting, however, some following questions would need to be answered.

In the first place, the writer seems to assume that with the significant increase of private contributions to the symphony and more attendants at the symphony's concent-in-the-park series last year, the symphony would have sufficient income so that continuing to offer funding for the symphony seems unnecessary. However, can the evidences including percent increase of private contributions and doubled attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series really substantiate that the symphony could be self-supporting? I'm afraid not. Since there is no information about the fore data of the private contributions to the symphony and the attendance situation. It is possible that after the private contributions increased 200 percent, it was still only a small part to support the symphony. The same thing can be said of the attendance situation. Doubled the attendance to some extent can show the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series was more popular, however, we don't know specific number of the people who attended the symphony before last year, if the number was 2, then doubled it was 4, thus could it mean that the symphony's concerts-in-park-series is popular enough to bring sufficient income to be self-supporting?

In the second place, the writer assumes that the symphony's being more popular leads to an increase in ticket prices, then it would bring the symphony more income, thus it is not necessary to continue to offer budget for the symphony. However, can the ticket prices really mean a lot for the development of the symphony? It is doubtful. First, there is no information about the fore price, if the price was very low that even making an increase in the price, the price is also low compared to many other common symphony, thus even if it may bring more income for the symphony, it is not sufficient for support itself. Second, although to some extent, the higher ticket price may show that the symphony is more popular, however, just as the higher ticket prices, it is possible that some people cannot afford it, thus may on the country make the symphony be less popular, which would have a negative effect on the future development of the symphony.

Finally, even if the current situation of the symphony is optimistic, however, who can guarantee that the symphony would continue to be going well? Who can ensure there would be no negative effect of eliminating funding for the symphony? It is very possible that people don't like the symphony overnight and if there is no market, there would be no income source, thus even if the symphony can be self-supporting today, it maybe even cannot make any money tomorrow. Furthermore, if eliminating budget of funding for the symphony, people may be suspicious. On one hand, they may suspect that the city commission has some financial problems. On the other hand, they may guess that the Grandview Symphony has some problems even it would be dissolved. All these have a negative effect on the development of the symphony.

In conclusion, can the evidences that 200 percent increase of private contributions to the symphony and double attendance situation and would-be higher ticket prices really substantiate that the symphony is popular enough to make a lot of money and the money would be sufficient to be self-supporting? Who can guarantee there would be no negative effects after eliminating the budget of funding for the symphony? The answers to these questions above lead this recommendation to an unconvincingly reasonable one.

ykhjy

thx very much~

lukebrehm

Pleas try to take notes of things I write or something like that because if you don't than all my work to try to help you is useless.

1. the symphony would (will) have sufficient income
2. The attendance doubling  -NOT-  Doubled the attendance  ----try not to start a sentence with a word like "Doubled"
3. either, we don't know the specific number of people who -OR- we don't know specific numbers of people who -BUT NOT- we don't know specific number of the people who
4. It is doubtful. ----you can also say---- It is questionable.
5. symphony would (will) continue to be (omit BE) going (go) well?
6. The answers to these questions above lead this recommendation to an unconvincingly reasonable one.  ----please stop saying "an unconvincingly reasonable one." I don't know where you got it from but it doesn't make any sense... at least not to me.


I encourage you to read english books written by native english speakers, it will greatly improve the flow of your writing.

Good argument

jz20000cn

觉得理由不是很有力。要从逻辑出发，而不是很琐碎的找茬。结尾简单清楚的概括就好，不需要用反问长句。

jz20000cn

第二段第一句seems可以改成wants.

jz20000cn

第一段最后的answer可以换成clarified.