AA011，浏览各大神的帖子后写的一篇AA，求批判建议！

hexbin

心中一直有两个疑问....
1.AA到底要写多少字才拿到高分呢？
我一直在构造我的模板...但怎么构造也不过100个字...第一段四十个，最后一段四十个。老实说，要写500字感觉还真难....大家有什么办法？
2.怎样的废话才不算废呢？
好像我这篇，其实压根没什么内容，就是不断的重复“the time Montoya has served as mayor ”“the time Varro has served as mayor ”，然后就超多字数了....我还真担心这样行不行，求各路大神给给一件啊

另外，以下文章也不是30min内打出来的，只是把我整理好的模板，复制粘贴复制粘贴....本来计划模板确定好就去打印背去了...


In the given passage, the author draws a conclusion that Once the residents of San Perdito voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro as the mayor, they would be best served. To support his idea, he alleges that the population has decreased ,the unemployment rate has increased and two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened during the four years when Montoya has served as mayor while the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased before that four years when Varro served as mayor. At first glance, this conclusion seems to some extent cogent. With deeper rumination, however, At least 3 logic flaws are found and undermine the main argument.



Firstly, the information the author provides is too vague to provide warrant support or proof of the main argument. The author tells us that two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened during the time Montoya has served as mayor, but the author tells us nothing about the businesses situation during the time Varro served as mayor. On one hand, if no business had closed for each new business during Varro' time, the conclusion is strengthened. On the other hand, however, if more than 2 businesses had closed for each new business during Varro' time, the conclusion is much weaker. Thus, the argument needs more information and research to clarify such a point.



Secondly, even if no business had closed for each new business during Varro' time, the author further commits a fallacy of "false analogy" by simply equating the economic and social situation during the time Montoya has served as mayor with that during the time Varro served as mayor. Given that the economic situation was much worse during the time Montoya has served as mayor than during the time Varro served as mayor, the argument would be impair. The argument is not sound unless the author makes sure the difference in economic and social situation between the time Montoya has served as mayor and the time Montoya has served as mayor is so little that it can be omitted.



Finally, even if no business had closed for each new business during Varro' time and even if the difference in economic and social situation can be omitted, the argument is still not substantiated because the author falsely assume that the economic growth is the only standard to judge a mayor's job. Common sense tells us that not only economic growth but also social stability, educational situation, environmental issues are the standards to judge a mayor's job. Thus, without such assumption, the argument is not persuasive enough.

In general, the argument is not as compelling as it stands since several key concerns are not address. To be more reasonable and convincing, the argument had better contain the contents discussed above rather than directly jump into conclusion that provided that the residents of San Perdito voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro as the mayor, they would be best served.

求大家意见！！！

hexbin

忘了贴上题目了：

The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.

`In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro.~