第一篇作文ARGUE 60，求拍，谢谢

4466325

第一次写，不限时，所以比较长。第四段标注黄色的那句不知道是否有问题，请指教，不甚感激！
60、The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice for a client.
"Most homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last heating season that region experienced 90 days with below-normal temperatures, and climate forecasters predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes are being built in the region in response to recent population growth. Because of these trends, we predict an increased demand for heating oil and recommend investment in Consolidated Industries, one of whose major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil."
1、Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.


提纲：
1、预测就一定可靠？
2、需求一定会上升？
3、需求增加就一定盈利、值得投资？


In this letter, the writer from an investment firm argues that investment could be recommended in Consolidated Industries, one of whose major business ooperations is the sale of home heating oil. To support his recommendation, the writer states that the weather of the northeast United States is getting colder for several more years and hence the oil demand might be increasing. He also points out that many new houses are also being set up, which means the oil demand is ascending in the future. Although the recommendation is reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived. Several assumption flaws could be easily picked up as below.


Initially, is the prediction made by climate forecasters reliable? In evaluating the evidence of a prediction, one must consider how the prediction was conducted. Since climate is difficlut to forecast very precisely in the next months or weeks, not to mention the further more years, the arguer fails to convince me that his prediction is fully bolstered by science-based reasoning. There is, meanwhile, no mention about the number and the name of the climate forecasters and no message about how many years the colder weather will be last. All of these ignorances and deficiencies put the assumption under doubtful situation. The increase of oil demand is nearly impossible to be warranted accordingly.


Secondly, the arguer predicts that the oil demand will be definitely increasing. First, this unlikely assumption rests on the past oil demand in the northeastern United States, where winters are always cold. Although it is quite possible in the past, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate the future. It is very likely that the residents there are changing their traditional habits into using electrical equipments or other heating methods. The arguer’s assumption is definitely flawed unless he can convince me that these and other scenarios are not going to happen. As far as the last heating season is concerned, the arguer even fails to provide the evidence that the demand of heating oil was obviously increasing when the region experienced 90 days with below-normal temperatures. Without this evidence, it is quite hasty to predict the future oil demand is increasing, even if the former climate forecasters correctly predicted the future cold. Second, many new houses being built do not necessarily mean the increased demand, too. As no evidence is demonstrated that the heating method of the new house is oil heating, and lacking the number of the houses and the residents, it is hard to predict the number of the increased oil. Perhaps the number of the new houses is too limited to influence the increase of the demand; and perhaps it would take a long time to build the houses and to reside people. All of these uncertainties undermine the arguer’s recommendation.


The last but not the least, the arguer asserts that increased demand of the future means profit and worth investment. Even if the increased demand is warranteed, it is hard to predict the profit. Common sense tells us that the profit is tightly bound up with two essential factors: revenue and costs. Only when the revenue surpasses the costs, does the firm’s profit become possible. All what I know from the letter is the prediction of the northwest region, only a part region of Consolidated Industries. I also fail to know the other business operations of the firm, which indicates that it is too subjetive to predict the firm’s good prospect. Without knowing more statistics numbers, the investment based on the assumption of profit would be dangerous.


To sum up, the arguer fails to prove the assumptions listed above, which undermines the credibility of the investment recommendation definitely. In order to be more persuasive and more prudent, the arguer should perform a more precise survey about the future weather of the region and provide more evidence to justify the increasing demand of home heating oil. Furthermore, if the firm’s operation costs are well considered, and if the other businesses of the firm are warranted to be well operated, the investment recommendation would be substantiated ultimately. （678字)

普渡哥

理由找的一般，不够深入。结构挺好。

比如：have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating  意思是以前会用oil， 但是oil价格波动大，或许现在有更便宜的方式，比如气，比如点。

找理由要深入一点，这个是客观题。你说他的预测不准，要用逻辑和证据证明它不准，不是你说不准就不准。

逻辑写作一定要思维缜密。

竹林中人

第二段，不需要你去讲调查该怎么做，而只需要你说明本文中的调查怎么不好不合理就行。
第三段太长，不建议一段写这么长，可以分段写，当你要表达一个意思的时候。

黄色标记的那句，没问题，是对的

4466325

非常感谢两位版主的意见，回头修改。
再麻烦版猪帮我打个分，这样好看到进步

4466325

理由找的一般，不够深入。结构挺好。
比如：have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating  意思是以前会用oil， 但是oil价格波动大，或许现在有更便宜的方式，比如气，比如点。
找理由要深入一点，这个是客观题。你说他的预测不准，要用逻辑和证据证明它不准，不是你说不准就不准。
逻辑写作一定要思维缜密。

-- by 会员 普渡哥 (2012/5/31 10:36:33)

谢谢！说的没错。我这个人从小就是擅长写，不擅长逻辑分析，所以数学成绩相对薄弱。我也看了一些范文，但还是不太能区分深入和不深入之间的差距。