|
AA The following editorial appeared in the Elm
City paper. “The construction last year of a shopping mall in downtown Oak
City was a mistake. Since the mall has opened, a number of local businesses have closed, and the downtown area suffers from an acute parking shortage, and arrests for crime and vagrancy have increased in the nearby Oak
City
Park. Elm
City should pay attention to the example of the Oak
City mall and deny the application to build a shopping mall in Elm
City.”(新题)
As it stands, the author concludes that a proposal to build a shopping mall in Elm City should be denied and presents three reasons derived from Oak City; that due to the building of a shopping mall, a number of local businesses were closed, a acute shortage of parking places was appeared and the arrests for crime and vagrancy were increased. To some extent, I agree with the author that it’s never too cautious to make a crucial decision. However, unless he can offers more explicit linkages between these facts with the building of a new shopping mall, I’ll retain my opinion prudently.
First, do all the aftermaths of the new building of shopping mall affect Oak
City? Citing the bankruptcies of local businesses as example, who will take the major responsibility? The business operators or the shopping mall? It’s an ever competitive world and only the fittest can survive. The introduce of shopping mall, as it seems to me, activating the market competition system, reallocating the social resource and setting a good example for adherents, is beneficial to the wholesome economical development of Oak City.
Second, the author notes that the downtown area suffers from an acute parking shortage for the new mall. However, he apparently omits the relationship of cause and effect. Who can blame a car owner for traffic if the transportation system itself is severe bad? And who can accuse of the mall’s successful popular among customers, as of the grapes’ sweet for the stealers, not to mention the parking problem is actually within government’s responsibility and is not controlled by a sigle business unit. We can’t simply deduce a conclusion without second speculation.
One might argue that if all the author mentioned are the real disadvantages caused by the new mall, it’s reasonably to prevent such nightmare from Eli
City. They totally neglect the difference between the two cities. There’s an old saying in China: The orange which is planted in the north of Huai
River is sweet, while in the south is bitter. A tool owns two adverse affects if used by different people, so the mall does. Oak City and Eli City, vary from many aspects such as government policies, natural and social environment, and municipal infrastructures ect. may have totally different endings in operating an indistinctive shopping mall, And if the Eli City , who can absorb the lesson of Oak City and operate the mall skillfully, will definitely gain much from this.
All in all, the author's failure to point out the direct linkages between cuase and results, to spell out the positive and negative meanings of these results, weakens his argument. To make this argument logically acceptable, the author would have to show the envidence which can answer the qustions I've mentioned reasonalbly. In addtition, the author should provide concrete evidence as well to demonstrate that the Eli
City is analogous to Oak
City. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an supeficial appeal.
写了很久，马上就要考了，彻底要over了。累就一个字。恳请大家修改指正。
[此贴子已经被作者于2007-7-26 18:14:05编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2007-7-26 18:13:00
楼主
