- UID
- 1142461
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2015-8-8
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
明天考,拿机经的第三篇练了手,有人给我看看,这样写能上5.5吗?
还有,会因为大量套模版而扣分吗?
The following appeared in a memo to the Saluda town council from the town’s business manager.
“Research indicates that those who exercise regularly are hospitalized less than half as often as those who don’t exercise. By providing a well-equipped gym for Saluda’s municipal employees, we should be able to reduce the cost of our group health insurance coverage by approximately 50% and thereby achieve a balanced town budget.
作文
The argument that the cost of the health insurance can be reduced by providing a well-equipped gym for the employees omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The statement that follows the description of the result of a research simply describes the comparison of the hospitalization between those who exercise regularly and those who don’t exercise. This alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of a gym, and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument rests on an unfair assumption that a well-equipped gym and regular exercise are mutually exclusive alternatives and there is no room for a middle ground. In a weak attempt to support its claim, the argument describes the result of a research. But if Saluda’s municipal employees do not conform to go to the gym, the gym will not solve the problem. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out other choices.
Secondly, the Saluda town council will not possibly reduce the cost of our group health insurance coverage by providing a well-equipped gym for the employees while it is entirely possible that the cost of a well-equipped gym is prohibitively high, even resulting in heavy financial burden. In short, without comparing the expenses the author’s notion is premature at best.
Finally, the author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that 50% of the cost of the group health insurance is due to the hospitalization of the employees who don’t exercise. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. In reality, this is not necessarily the case and it is more likely that the employees are in emergency. For example, they have a car accident or eat poisonous food. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibilities.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not persuasive. If it includes the items discussed above instead of solely illustrating the correlation between the gym and cost cutting of the health insurance, the argument will be more thorough and convincing. |
|