第一篇计时Argument （AA042）请各路牛牛帮忙看看！不甚感激！

eaters

The following appeared in the opinion section of a national newsmagazine.

“To reverse the deterioration of the postal service, the government should raise the price of postage stamps. This solution will no doubt prove effective, since the price increase will generate larger revenues and will also reduce the volume of mail, thereby eliminating the strain on the existing system and contributing to improved morale.”

In this argument the author concludes that in order to reverse the deterioration of the postal service, the government should raise the price of postage stamps. The author makes a further prediction that such solution will be effective. The author's line of reasoning is that the larger revenues and smaller volume of mail due to the price increase will eliminate the strain on the existing system and contribute to improved morale. This argument is unconvincing because it suffers from three critical flaws.

 

First, the argument rests on a gratuitous assumption that the deterioration is due to the low price of postage stamps. However, the assumption is questionable because the author provides no evidence to support this argument. The arguer fails to take into account other facts that might contribute to the result of the deterioration. It is likely that the increasing use of Email causes people to lose interest in traditional snail mail; it is also likely that the poor postal service contribute to the deterioration. Any of these scenarios, if true, would show that raise the price of postage stamps will not solve the problem. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibilities.

 

Second, the author unfairly assumes that the increased price will generate larger revenues. A price increase will generate more revenue only if the volume of mail remains constant or increases. There is, however, no guarantee that this is the case, nor does the author cite any evidence to support the assumption. Lacking this assumption, the conclusion is unfounded. Moreover, the author has obviously neglected the reverse effects that the price increase might cause. For example, the raise of the price of postage stamps might keep people from using postal service. Thus, the revenues can not increase, they may decrease in reality.

 

Third, the author makes a questionable assumption that the reduction of the volume of mail will result in improved morale. No evidence is given to support this assumption. In fact, employee morale is materially improved by other means, and that additional revenues will not be used in ways that improve morale. In addition, given that the price increase would decrease the volume of mail, it is entirely possible that the size of labor force might be also reduced, which in turn would undermine morale.

 

In sum, the author's argument is not compelling because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to provide evidence that adjusting stamp price will reverse the deterioration of the postal service. In addition, supporting that the price increase will generate larger revenues and contribute to improved morale would further substantiate the author' view.

（总字数：451）

再一个月就要杀鸡了，四天前才开始准备AWA，心里实在发毛啊…………大家看后有什么意见小弟脑袋剃光恳请大家猛拍！

eaters

字体太小自己都看不清……重发一遍不好意思

In this argument the author concludes that in order to reverse the deterioration of the postal service, the government should raise the price of postage stamps. The author makes a further prediction that such solution will be effective. The author's line of reasoning is that the larger revenues and smaller volume of mail due to the price increase will eliminate the strain on the existing system and contribute to improved morale. This argument is unconvincing because it suffers from three critical flaws.

 

First, the argument rests on a gratuitous assumption that the deterioration is due to the low price of postage stamps. However, the assumption is questionable because the author provides no evidence to support this argument. The arguer fails to take into account other facts that might contribute to the result of the deterioration. It is likely that the increasing use of Email causes people to lose interest in traditional snail mail; it is also likely that the poor postal service contribute to the deterioration. Any of these scenarios, if true, would show that raise the price of postage stamps will not solve the problem. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibilities.

 

Second, the author unfairly assumes that the increased price will generate larger revenues. A price increase will generate more revenue only if the volume of mail remains constant or increases. There is, however, no guarantee that this is the case, nor does the author cite any evidence to support the assumption. Lacking this assumption, the conclusion is unfounded. Moreover, the author has obviously neglected the reverse effects that the price increase might cause. For example, the raise of the price of postage stamps might keep people from using postal service. Thus, the revenues can not increase, they may decrease in reality.

 

Third, the author makes a questionable assumption that the reduction of the volume of mail will result in improved morale. No evidence is given to support this assumption. In fact, employee morale is materially improved by other means, and that additional revenues will not be used in ways that improve morale. In addition, given that the price increase would decrease the volume of mail, it is entirely possible that the size of labor force might be also reduced, which in turn would undermine morale.

 

In sum, the author's argument is not compelling because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to provide evidence that adjusting stamp price will reverse the deterioration of the postal service. In addition, supporting that the price increase will generate larger revenues and contribute to improved morale would further substantiate the author' view.

bigskings

文章我就不发表看法了

但是我还是说几句

我17天后就要考试了！~

我也是一周前才开始看作文，而且现在还没开始看argument！

所以，楼主不用怕啊！

pharmacystar

我觉得lz写的不错，并且用词也很好

可是第三条argument我有点疑问

Third, the author makes a questionable assumption that the reduction of the volume of mail will result in improved morale. No evidence is given to support this assumption. In fact, employee morale is materially improved by other means, and that additional revenues will not be used in ways that improve morale. In addition, given that the price increase would decrease the volume of mail, it is entirely possible that the size of labor force might be also reduced, which in turn would undermine morale.

其实应该是reduction of the volume of mail 和 revenue increase共同result in improved morale

这句是不是应该修改一下

我的思路是这样的

首先 增加邮票的价格不一定会引起利润的增长并且邮件流量的减少

然后  利润的增长和邮件流量的减少不一定可以鼓舞士气，减少压力

第三  鼓舞士气，减少压力不一定就可以 减少 邮政系统的退化

原文在增加邮票价格和邮政系统退化之间搭了一个桥

这个桥就是利润增长和邮件流量减少进一步鼓舞士气，减少邮政系统的压力

可是我觉得lz第一条argument是直接论述  增加邮票价格 和  减少邮政系统退化之间的关系

好像就是没有看到推理过程

不妥不妥

eaters

谢谢！！！