The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."
The argument that the writer is trying to make contains several flaws. First of all, the writer needs to be clear on whether or not he or she wishes to keep Scott Woods in a "natural, undeveloped state." To be natural and undeveloped suggest that Scott Woods is free from anything man-made. It has not been infected with man-made buildings of any kind. The author suggests that the building of a school in Scoot Woods would preserve Morganton's "natural parkland" by preventing the construction of shopping centers and houses. Yet, the building of a school would prevent Morganton from preserving this natural parkland just as shopping centers and houses. While the school may provide substantial acreage for athletic fields, it would be still contributing to pollution, the loss of vegetation and overall disruption to the natural ecosystem of Scott Woods. Consequently, the area would not be a "natural parkland" as the author suggests.
Furthermore, the author appeals to the sensitivity of the readers through his discussion on the children's participation in sports. He falsely states that the the children's use of the athletic fields that the school would provide is the best way to utilize this natural parkland. Again, the author mistakingly feels that athletic fields constitute a natural parkland. Since the author continuously misuses the word "natural parkland," the validity of the letter is weakened.
After acknowledging that the argument "contains several flaws," this adequate response identifies a basic problem in the reasoning -- the letter writer's ambivalence about the desirability of maintaining Scott Woods as natural and undeveloped parkland. The writer recognizes that the argument's confused intentions are indirectly related to a root flaw in the argument: the assumption that construction of new buildings -- even school buildings -- would not impact the preservation of the parkland. Further, the writer does a competent job of explaining how both of these problems are the result of a lack of clarity about what constitutes a "natural parkland."
Paragraph 2 identifies an additional weakness in the argument; the writer refuses to be taken in by the emotional appeal of a proposal that promises to benefit children. However, this critique is stated in a confusing way (".??燼ppeals to the sensitivity of the readers through his discussion on the children's participation in sports") and is not sufficiently developed.
The writer generally demonstrates adequate control of diction, syntax, grammar, and usage. Ideas are conveyed clearly, if mechanically. Some sentences, though, are awkwardly worded (e.g., ".??爌reserving this natural parkland just as shopping centers and houses"). In sum, both the unevenly developed critique of the argument and the level of control of language warrant a score of 4.
价格 : ￥1
价格 : ￥1