新G argument31 求拍！！

zx9203

题目：“In each city in the region of Treehaven, the majority of the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the value they place on public education. For example, Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. It seems clear, therefore, that Parson City residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents.”
之前贴错了板块，重发一遍。。。求大家重拍！我居然写了1.5h,而且没有到500words.
这个题目中的作者是不是只提出了一个reason来support 他的conclusion啊？
In this letter, the author concludes thatParson City residents attach more significance on providing a good education inpublic schools than Blue City residents do. In support of this conclusion, theauthor points out that Parson City spent nearly twice as much tax revenues asBlue City on public schools recently. At first glance, the author’s argumentappears to be somehow plausible, while a close examination will reveal how groundlessit is. We do not have a look very far to see the invalidity of this argument. Theargument is problematic for the following reasons.

Firstly, the author employs a typical “allthings are equal” way of thinking in unfairly assuming that the recent trend canrepresent two cities’ consistent policies on funding public schools. Yet theauthor offers no evidence to substantiate this assumption. It is entirelypossible that during the past years Blue City has poured far more money intofacilitating public education. Thereby, the huge amount of initial investmentmakes the lately reduction of funding understandable. Without considering thispossible scenario, the author cannot justifiably conclude that Blue City residentscare less about public education.

Another logic flaw that could shed light onthe author’s argument is the flimsy premise that because the two cities havethe same number of residents, they should therefore budget the same amount ofmoney for each city’s public schools. In spite of the value residents place onpublic education, many other differences between Parson City and Blue City maycontribute to the differences in the amount of money they provide to the publicschools. For example, if there are fewer students who go to public schools inBlue City, too much budget for public schools is unnecessary. In that event,the fact that Blue City does not need to educate as many students as those inParson City, fails to imply that they care less about education in publicschools.

In addition, the data provided by theauthor in order to show the tax revenues spent in each city’s public educationsystem is quite vague. We are not informed how many the actual percentage ofthe total budget is used for public schools in each city. Perhaps, Parson Cityenjoys a higher tax income, the fund for its public education only accounts fora small portion while the absolute number is almost double of the fund in BlueCity. In short, the author’s ignorance on the fraction of the taxes that eachcity government collects, renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasiveas it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the author should demonstratehistorical records of funding public schools in each city, and rule out all possibilitiesthat Blue City may needn’t to pay as much as Parson City do. We would also needmore concrete evidence, including information about the two cities’ budgetaryplan and the percentage of the total tax income used in public education.

普渡哥

Another logic flaw that could shed light on the author’s argument is the flimsy premise that because the two cities have the same number of residents, they should therefore budget the same amount of money for each city’s public schools.

能不能帮忙理一下这句话的结构。。

竹林中人

In this letter, the author concludes that Parson City
residents attach more significance on providing a good education in publicschools than Blue City residents do. Insupport of this conclusion, the author points out that ParsonCity spent nearly twice as much taxrevenues as Blue City on public schools recently. At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somehowplausible, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. We donot have a look very far to see the invalidity of this argument. The argumentis problematic for the following reasons.这、能否更简洁些呢，然后最好照应到instruction中的要求。

Firstly, the author employs a typical “all thingsare equal” way of thinking in unfairly assuming that the recent trend canrepresent two cities’ consistent policies on funding public schools. Yet theauthor offers no evidence tosubstantiate this assumption.这里你最好把自己觉得需要怎么样的evidence说下 It is entirely possible that during the past years Blue City haspoured far more money into facilitating public education. Thereby, the hugeamount of initial investment makes the lately reduction of fundingunderstandable. Without considering this possible scenario, the author cannotjustifiably conclude that Blue City residents care lessabout public education.

Another logic flaw that could shed light on theauthor’s argument is the flimsy premise that because the two cities have thesame number of residents, they should therefore budget the same amount of moneyfor each city’s public schools. In spite of the value residents place nonpubliceducation, many other differences between ParsonCity and Blue Citymay contribute to the differences in the amount of money they provide to the publicschools. For example, if there are fewer students who go to public schools in Blue City,too much budget for public schools is unnecessary. In that event, the fact thatBlue Citydoes not need to educate as many students as those in Parson City,fails to imply that they care less about education in public schools.

In addition, the data provided by the author inorder to show the tax revenues spent in each city’s public education system isquite vague. We are not informed how many the actual percentage of thetotal budget is used for public schools in each city. Perhaps, Parson Cityenjoys a higher tax income, the fund for its public education only accounts fora small portion while the absolute number is almost double of the fund in Blue City.In short, the author’s ignorance on the fraction of the taxes that each citygovernment collects renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as itstands. Before we accept the conclusion, the author should demonstratehistorical records of funding public schools in each city, and rule out all possibilitiesthat Blue City may needn’t to pay as much as Parson City do. We would also needmore concrete evidence, including information about the two cities’ budgetaryplan and the percentage of the total tax income used in public education.

竹林中人

建议ＬＺ不必套用别人的模板了，现在ａｒｇｕ，不同的ｉｎｓｔｒｕｃｔｉｏｎ，不同类型的题目，有不同的写法，不是一两个模板可以靠得住的。