北美Argument范文中的一段话，完全看不懂...请牛人指点

gamxiaoyuan

Splitting the issues of cost-efficiency and environmental impact highlights an ambiguity in the claim that railway shipping is more appropriate. On the one hand, it may be appropriate, or prudent, for me to ship furniture by rail because it is cost-effective; on the other hand, it might be appropriate, or socially correct, to encourage more railway shipping because it is environmentally sound. The argument thus trades on an equivocation between social correctness on the one hand, and personal or business prudence on the other.
这段到底说什么意思？

xiaoqiaoli

首先申明。。。非牛人。。。不过是个热心人~~哈哈~~
先帮你翻译翻译~~~
在关于为何选择铁路运输更好这一问题上，要分清楚是因为收益成本还是因为环境影响是很难的。在一方面，对于我来说，用火车运家具可能更好（或者说更为谨慎），因为火车运输便宜。而另一方面，也可能是因为火车更加环保。因此，这段议论对于social correctness 和personal or business prudence 采取了模棱两可的方式。

觉得大概意思就是说这个ARG想要分清楚social correctness 和personal or business prudence 是不太正确的。

这是哪一篇AA呀？LZ把题目贴上来吧~~可能理解得更好些~~

gamxiaoyuan

以下是原文，楼上的兄弟，你说的我好像还是不太明白厄...
The following appeared in an article in a health and fitness magazine.
“Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health and that it is completely free of bacteria. Residents of Saluda, the small town where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Even though Saluda Natural Spring Water may seem expensive, drinking it instead of tap water is a wise investment in good health.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.

xiaoqiaoli

看了题目。。。我感觉晕了。。。完全不知道你看不懂的那句话是攻击哪个逻辑错误的。。。要不。。。你把整个ARG的范文都发上来看看吧~~