Issue寫(xiě)作范文詳細(xì)解析整合
今天給大家?guī)?lái)了Issue寫(xiě)作范文詳細(xì)解析，快來(lái)一起學(xué)習(xí)吧。下面小編就和大家分享，來(lái)欣賞一下吧。
Issue寫(xiě)作范文詳細(xì)解析
Topic
The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine："The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."
Sample Essay
In this argument, the writer of the letter concludes that global pollution of water and air has caused a decline in the number of amphibians worldwide. To support his or her conclusion, the writer cites the results of two studies, seventy-five years apart, that purportedly show that the number of amphibians in one park in California, Yosemite National Park, have drastically declined. Additionally, the writer casts aside a given reason for the decline, stating that the introduction of trout to the park (who are known to eat amphibian eggs) does not explain the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians. This argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.
First of all, the argument is based on only two studies in one specific part of the world, Yosemite National Park in California. It is impossible to pinpoint a worldwide theory for the decline of amphibians based on any number of studies in only one specific location in the world - the specific varieties of amphibians, geographical conditions and other location specific variables prohibit such a sweeping generalization. One very specific location cannot be used as a model for all other locations, even within one particular country, let alone the entire world. The writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that links the Yosemite study with any purported effects anywhere else in the global environment.
Secondly, the two separate studies were done seventy-five years apart. There is no evidence that the two studies were conducted in a similar manner over the same duration of time or even over the same exact areas of Yosemite National Park, or that the exact same study methods were used. For example, perhaps the first study lasted over an entire year and was conducted by twenty-five experts in amphibious biology, resulting in the finding of seven species of amphibians in abundant numbers. By contrast, perhaps the second study was conducted over a period of one week by a lone high school student as a school science project. The writer offers no basis on which to compare the two studies, leaving it open as to whether the two are truly comparable in their breadth, scope and expertise.
Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters in 1920, but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof.
In summary, the writer fails to establish any causal relationship between global air and water pollution and the decline of amphibious life worldwide. The evidence presented is extremely weak at best and narrowly focuses on one tiny area of the globe, as well as putting forward as proof two studies about which almost nothing is known. For a stronger argument, the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating air and water pollution with not only the decline at Yosemite but also throughout other areas of the world.(599 words)
[題目]
下述文字摘自一封致某環(huán)保雜志編輯的信函："全球兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量的減少明顯標(biāo)志著全球性水與大氣的污染。對(duì)加利福尼亞州約塞米蒂國(guó)家公園內(nèi)兩棲動(dòng)物所作的兩項(xiàng)研究可證實(shí)我的這一結(jié)論。1915年公園內(nèi)有七個(gè)物種的兩棲動(dòng)物，每一物種都擁有豐富的種群數(shù)量。然而，1992年，在公園內(nèi)所能觀察到的兩棲動(dòng)物物種僅為四類，且每一物種的種群數(shù)量已驟然下降。約塞米蒂公園動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少被歸咎于始于1920年的將鮭魚(yú)引入公園水域的做法(眾所周知，鮭魚(yú)喜食兩棲動(dòng)物所產(chǎn)的卵)。但鮭魚(yú)的引入不可能成為約塞米蒂公園動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少的真正原因，因?yàn)樗鼰o(wú)法來(lái)解釋全球范圍內(nèi)的動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少。"
[范文正文]
在本項(xiàng)論述中，信函作者的結(jié)論是，全球性水與大氣污染已致使世界范圍內(nèi)兩棲動(dòng)物的數(shù)量減少。為了支持其論點(diǎn)，作者援引了兩份時(shí)隔75年之久的研究結(jié)果，這兩份結(jié)果據(jù)稱可證明加利福尼亞州某一公園――即約塞米蒂國(guó)家公園――內(nèi)兩棲動(dòng)物的數(shù)量銳減。此外，該作者撇開(kāi)了動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少的一個(gè)已知原因，陳述道，將鮭魚(yú)引入公園(據(jù)稱，鮭魚(yú)喜食兩棲動(dòng)物所產(chǎn)的卵)這一做法不足以解釋世界范圍內(nèi)兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量上的減少。這一論點(diǎn)有悖于簡(jiǎn)單的邏輯，犯有一系列關(guān)鍵性的邏輯謬誤。
首先，該論點(diǎn)所依據(jù)的僅僅是世界上某一特定地點(diǎn)――即加利福尼亞州約塞米蒂國(guó)家公園――內(nèi)的兩份研究。圍繞著兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少這一問(wèn)題，如果僅以世界上一個(gè)特定的地點(diǎn)為樣品，再多數(shù)量的研究也無(wú)法得出一種精確的、適用于全世界的理論。兩棲動(dòng)物的具體種類、地理狀況以及其他因地點(diǎn)而特異的變數(shù)均不允許我們作出如此一概而論的總括。一個(gè)非常具體的地點(diǎn)不能用作一個(gè)代表所有其他地點(diǎn)的模型，即使在一個(gè)特定的國(guó)家內(nèi)也不行，更不用說(shuō)在整個(gè)世界范圍內(nèi)了。信函作者沒(méi)有提供任何證據(jù)將約塞米蒂公園的研究與全球環(huán)境中任何其他一處地方的任何所宣稱的效果聯(lián)系起來(lái)。 其次，所提及的那兩項(xiàng)互為獨(dú)立的研究時(shí)隔75年之久。沒(méi)有證據(jù)可證明這兩項(xiàng)研究是在相同的時(shí)間跨度內(nèi)以相似的方式進(jìn)行的，或是在約塞米蒂公園完全相同的地點(diǎn)進(jìn)行的，或所使用的研究方法絕然相同。
例如，第一項(xiàng)研究可能持續(xù)了整整一年之久，且是由兩棲動(dòng)物生物學(xué)領(lǐng)域的二十五位專家共同進(jìn)行的。結(jié)果是發(fā)現(xiàn)了七大種類數(shù)目眾多的兩棲動(dòng)物。相反，第二項(xiàng)研究可能是一位高中生孤身一人所做的學(xué)校的一個(gè)科學(xué)課題，僅為期一個(gè)星期。信函作者沒(méi)有提供將此兩項(xiàng)研究進(jìn)行比較的基礎(chǔ)，從而使兩項(xiàng)研究在其廣度、范圍以及專業(yè)水準(zhǔn)方面的可比性不得而知。 最后，信函作者指出，兩棲動(dòng)物種群數(shù)量的減少，已被人歸咎于1920年將鮭魚(yú)引入公園水域這一做法，但緊接著又以該論據(jù)無(wú)法解釋世界范圍內(nèi)動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少這一似是而非的依據(jù)將該論據(jù)予以否認(rèn)。信函作者論述中的這一部分漫不經(jīng)心地將一個(gè)極為相關(guān)的事實(shí)棄置不顧，即眾所周知，鮭魚(yú)喜食兩棲動(dòng)物所產(chǎn)的卵。這種"prove a negative "的嘗試往往是這樣一類人所慣用的最后伎倆，他們竭力尋找某種徒勞的嘗試，力圖去證明他們所宣稱的事物的真理。從根本上講，"prove a negative"是不可能的。這樣一種做法是試圖將論證的負(fù)擔(dān)重新轉(zhuǎn)嫁給不相信該論據(jù)的人。全球的環(huán)境情形與約塞米蒂公園的情形并不絕然對(duì)應(yīng)。鮭魚(yú)極有可能造成了兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少這一事實(shí)在缺乏進(jìn)一步證據(jù)的情況下是斷不能輕易予以否認(rèn)的。
概括而言，信函作者沒(méi)能在全球空氣和水污染與世界范圍內(nèi)兩棲生命數(shù)量減少之間建立起任何因果關(guān)系。該作者所拿出的證據(jù)充其量也是極為蒼白無(wú)力的，狹隘地將焦點(diǎn)集中在世界的一片極小的區(qū)域上，作為證據(jù)而援引的兩項(xiàng)研究幾乎不能說(shuō)明任何問(wèn)題。欲使其論點(diǎn)更具力度，信函作者尚需擺出直接的證據(jù)，將水和空氣污染不僅僅與約塞米蒂公園的兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少聯(lián)系起來(lái)，而且也與世界其他地方的動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少聯(lián)系起來(lái)。
Issue寫(xiě)作范文詳細(xì)解析
Issue
"Colleges and universities should offer more courses on popular music, film, advertising and television because contemporary culture has much greater relevance for students than do arts and literature of the past."
Sample Essay
To the extent that contemporary culture is, by definition, current, it does have a much more immediate impact on students and people in general than do the arts and literature of the past. Contemporaneous events directly affect everyone alive at the time because they are occurring at precisely the same time as the individual's existence. But to paraphrase a famous philosopher: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." To a great extent, past arts and literature shape who we are as people at least as much as, if not more than, contemporary culture does.
Everyone alive today is affected in one way or another by the events of the past. Past events have directly led to the way that the world is shaped today. The arts and literature are one of the most well-preserved and documented resources that can give us a direct link into what actually happened in the past. Consider the religious writings of the Bible, the Koran and those of Confucius, as well as those related to Buddhism, Hinduism and all other religions. These writings directly relate to, and in some cases to a great extent control, the behavior of human beings today even though most were written hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Artworks relating to these religions also have a profound effect. Consider Michelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican, or the vast myriad of historic Buddhist statues throughout Asia, or the ancient Muslim mosques throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. It would be difficult to argue that contemporary culture has more relevance to today's students when compared with the relevance of these examples of past arts and literature.
At times it is difficult to determine what exactly is the difference between contemporary culture and the arts and literature of the past. Shakespeare's classic writings are continuously being adapted into current movies that are often big hits with students and the general population as a whole. Millions of people every year view classic works of art in museums all over the world. Readings of religious texts have never gone out of style with a large part of the world's population. Clashes between centuries-old cultures and religions, such as that of Western countries and Islamic extremists and that of Hindus and Muslims in India, demonstrate that the religious artifacts that could be called arts and literature of the past are very much a part of contemporary culture.
While the past can certainly not be ignored, a large part of what students must learn at university is based on contemporary culture. Most religious learning, at least of one's own religion, occurs either at home or early on in a student's education. At the university level, studies of politics, business and the computer sciences must deal in great detail with the latest advances in contemporary culture in order to remain up to date and relevant. Other subjects, such as mathematics, agriculture, and the arts and literature themselves look largely to the past for the core knowledge that is taught in these courses. The application of these lessons from the past are entirely appropriate to help put contemporary culture into some type of historical context that can help students to understand and comprehend the rapidly changing world that they are living in.
It would seem self-evident that a properly educated university student must find a balance between studying contemporary culture without neglecting the study of arts and literature of the past. The study of one is not mutually exclusive of the study of the other. The benefits of a well-rounded education come from not only knowing the state of the world as it exists today but also in knowing how the world arrived at this stage of development in the first place.
觀點(diǎn)陳述型作文/[題目]
"學(xué)院和大學(xué)應(yīng)該開(kāi)設(shè)更多通俗音樂(lè)、電影、廣告和電視方面的課程，因?yàn)楫?dāng)代文化要比昔日的藝術(shù)和文學(xué)對(duì)于學(xué)生具有遠(yuǎn)為密切的聯(lián)系。"
[范文正文]
只要當(dāng)代文化——依照其定義——具有當(dāng)代性，它無(wú)疑比昔日的藝術(shù)和文學(xué)對(duì)學(xué)生乃至普通大眾具有一種遠(yuǎn)為直接的影響。同時(shí)代的事件會(huì)直接影響到生活在那一時(shí)代的每一個(gè)人，因?yàn)樗鼈兊陌l(fā)生與這個(gè)人的生存正值同時(shí)。但這里我們可以復(fù)述一位著名哲學(xué)家的話，"那些無(wú)法從歷史中汲取教訓(xùn)者注定會(huì)重蹈覆轍".在相當(dāng)大的程度上，昔日的藝術(shù)和文學(xué)造就了我們現(xiàn)如今的情狀，其作用即使并不甚于當(dāng)代文化，至少與當(dāng)代文化相同。 生活于當(dāng)今時(shí)代的每個(gè)人以一種或另一種方式深受過(guò)去事件的影響。昔日的事件直接導(dǎo)致了世界目前的運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)方式。藝術(shù)和文學(xué)是保存和記載得最為完善的一種資源，它們能使我們與過(guò)去實(shí)際發(fā)生過(guò)的事情直接聯(lián)系起來(lái)。 不妨考慮一下《圣經(jīng)》，《可蘭經(jīng)》一類的宗教著作，孔子的著述，以及那些與佛教、印度教和所有其他宗教相關(guān)的著作。這些直接地與當(dāng)今時(shí)代人們的行為相關(guān)，并在某些情形中在相當(dāng)大的程度上控制著當(dāng)今時(shí)代人們的行為，雖然它們大多數(shù)創(chuàng)作于數(shù)百年、甚至數(shù)千年之前。與這些宗教相關(guān)的藝術(shù)品同樣也產(chǎn)生了深遠(yuǎn)的影響。我們不妨考慮一下梵蒂岡西斯廷教堂內(nèi)米開(kāi)朗琪羅的作品，或遍布亞洲的無(wú)數(shù)具有歷史性意義的佛教像，或者散布在整個(gè)中東和中亞地區(qū)的古代穆斯林清真寺。與這些過(guò)去的藝術(shù)和文學(xué)實(shí)例的相關(guān)性相比，當(dāng)代文化被說(shuō)成與當(dāng)今學(xué)生更密切相關(guān)，這一論點(diǎn)是難以成立的。
有些時(shí)候，人們難以確定當(dāng)代文化與過(guò)去的藝術(shù)和文學(xué)的差異究竟何在。莎士比亞的經(jīng)典之作不斷地被改編成當(dāng)代電影，常常能成為學(xué)生和普通大眾的大熱門(mén)。每年，全世界數(shù)百萬(wàn)人在博物館觀賞古典藝術(shù)作品。宗教文本的閱讀對(duì)于世界相當(dāng)大的一部分人口而言從來(lái)就不失為一種風(fēng)尚。數(shù)個(gè)世紀(jì)古老的文化與宗教之間的沖突，如西方國(guó)家與伊斯蘭極端主義者之間的沖突，以及印度國(guó)內(nèi)印度教徒與穆斯林教徒之間的沖突，例證著那些可被稱為昔日藝術(shù)和文學(xué)的宗教事物在很大程度上實(shí)乃當(dāng)代文化的一部分。
雖然過(guò)去無(wú)疑不能被淡忘，但學(xué)生在大學(xué)中所學(xué)內(nèi)容，很大一部分是基于當(dāng)代文化的。大多數(shù)宗教學(xué)習(xí)，至少一個(gè)人自身的宗教的學(xué)習(xí)，或始于家庭，或始于學(xué)生受教育的早期。在大學(xué)這一層次上，對(duì)政治、商科以及計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)的學(xué)習(xí)，與當(dāng)代文化中的最新進(jìn)步深深相涉，以便使人與時(shí)俱進(jìn)，與時(shí)代緊密相關(guān)。其它的學(xué)科，如數(shù)學(xué)、農(nóng)業(yè)、藝術(shù)與文學(xué)，很大程度上是從過(guò)去的源泉獲取這些課程中所傳授的核心知識(shí)。這些來(lái)自過(guò)去的課程的應(yīng)用完全是恰當(dāng)?shù)?，有助于將?dāng)代文化置于某種歷史架構(gòu)之中，去幫助學(xué)生領(lǐng)略和理解他們所生活于其中的那個(gè)變化迅速的世界。
有一點(diǎn)似乎是不證自明的，即一個(gè)受過(guò)恰當(dāng)教育的大學(xué)生必須在學(xué)習(xí)當(dāng)代文化與不偏廢昔日藝術(shù)和文學(xué)之間尋找到某種平衡。對(duì)兩者的學(xué)習(xí)并非互為排斥。一種綜合全面的教育，其益處不僅在于讓人知道當(dāng)今世界所處的狀態(tài)，而且亦在于首先要讓人弄清世界是何以抵達(dá)目前這一發(fā)展階段的。
Issue寫(xiě)作范文詳細(xì)解析
Topic
The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper
"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."
Sample Essay
The author of this letter concludes in his or her argument that former Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus because he is at fault for damage that has occurred over a twenty-year time span to the River Bridge. The author also blames Mayor Durant for long-time traffic problems on the bridge, stating that Durant actually caused these problems twenty years before because he approved the construction of the bridge and did not approve a wider and better-designed bridge. The arguer may have a personal vendetta against Mayor Durant but the elements stated in the argument do not support such an accusation.
First of all, the author squarely places blame on Mayor Durant for the simple act of approving the construction of the bridge. There is no evidence presented that merely approving the building of the bridge had anything whatsoever to do with the damage that has occurred or the traffic problems on the bridge. It is entirely possible that Mr. Durant simply approved the idea of constructing the bridge and not the design of the bridge or the contractor that built it. Simply approving the construction of the bridge does not in and of itself cause damage to that bridge or any resulting traffic problems.
In addition, the arguer concludes that if Mayor Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge that there would be no damage or traffic problems, an argument for which there is no basis of proof offered. It is a well-known fact that bridges are subject to deterioration, particularly over a period of twenty years, no matter how well designed they may be. The author also fails to offer any supporting evidence to show that a more durable bridge with fewer traffic problems could have been built for approximately the same amount of public money. It seems likely that a wider bridge would have more damage problems rather than fewer, and probably would have cost more as well, whether public or private funds were used.
Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the River Bridge has deteriorated much more rapidly than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. This groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons for the discrepancy in the deterioration of the two bridges such as traffic loads, location and other environmental variables. It is possible that the Derby Bridge was much more protected from the elements and rarely used by heavy truck traffic, for example. The author gives no basis for a direct comparison between the two bridges other than his or her personal opinion.
Finally, the letter writer refers to the "negligence and wastefulness" of Mayor Durant. The only action cited by the author is the approval of the bridge in the first place, which proves neither neglect nor wasting of anything. The sentence itself contains a non sequitur - firstly discussing the severe winters of the past several years, and then accusing Mr. Durant of waste and neglect. This accusation is unwarranted as well as unsupported in the author's argument.
In summary, the author simply makes groundless accusations without providing any real support for his or her argument. To make the argument convincing, the author would have to provide evidence that Mayor Durant approved a faulty bridge design or an unqualified construction company that caused the bridge's damage and traffic problems. The author should have also provided supporting details that show that the damage to the bridge is out of the ordinary and directly caused by Mayor Durant's decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the author's point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.
(605 words)
[題目]
下述文字乃一封致《Atticus都市報(bào)》的信函："前市長(zhǎng)Durant應(yīng)向全體Atticus 市民道歉。無(wú)論是將Atticus 市和Hartley市連結(jié)起來(lái)的跨河大橋所遭到的毀壞，還是我們?cè)诖髽蛏祥L(zhǎng)期以來(lái)所經(jīng)歷的交通問(wèn)題，實(shí)際上都是由Durant 市長(zhǎng)在20年之前一手鑄成的。無(wú)論如何，是他批準(zhǔn)了大橋的開(kāi)工建設(shè)。如果他所批準(zhǔn)建設(shè)的大橋更寬一些，設(shè)計(jì)得更精良一些，而所投入其上的公共款項(xiàng)大致相等的話，那么，無(wú)論是大橋的受損，還是交通擁堵問(wèn)題均不會(huì)發(fā)生。然則，在過(guò)去20年期間，跨河大橋現(xiàn)在則遠(yuǎn)比上游河段上長(zhǎng)度遠(yuǎn)長(zhǎng)得多的Derby河大橋更為快速地遭到毀損。盡管過(guò)去幾年中冬天的日子甚為嚴(yán)酷，但我們絕不能原諒Durant 市長(zhǎng)的玩忽職守和浪費(fèi)。"
[范文正文]
本信函的作者在其論述中得出結(jié)論，認(rèn)為前市長(zhǎng)Durant 應(yīng)向Atticus全市作出正式道歉，因?yàn)閷?duì)于過(guò)去20年中跨河大橋所遭受的損壞他應(yīng)引咎自責(zé)。作者亦責(zé)怪Durant市長(zhǎng)造成了大橋上長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)的交通問(wèn)題。作者陳述道，由于Durant市長(zhǎng)批準(zhǔn)了現(xiàn)在這座大橋的開(kāi)工建設(shè)，而沒(méi)有批準(zhǔn)一座更寬、設(shè)計(jì)更精良的大橋，故他在20年之前實(shí)際上就已鑄成了上述這些問(wèn)題。提出這些論點(diǎn)的作者可以對(duì)Durant市長(zhǎng)有此個(gè)人怨仇，但論述中所陳述的各項(xiàng)內(nèi)容并不能為這樣一種責(zé)怪提供依據(jù)。
首先，作者斬釘截鐵地將罪責(zé)歸咎于Durant市長(zhǎng)，僅僅因?yàn)樗鷾?zhǔn)了大橋的建造這一行為本身。但作者沒(méi)能提供證據(jù)證明，僅僅只是批準(zhǔn)該座大橋的建造這一行為與大橋本身所遭受的毀壞或大橋上的交通問(wèn)題有任何必然的聯(lián)系。完全有可能的是，Durant先生僅僅只是準(zhǔn)許了建造這座大橋的想法，而并沒(méi)有認(rèn)可該大橋的設(shè)計(jì)或建造該大橋的承包商。純粹去批準(zhǔn)大橋的建造，這一行為就其本身而言并不會(huì)導(dǎo)致大橋受毀或造成任何交通問(wèn)題。
此外，論述者得出結(jié)論，認(rèn)為如果Durant市長(zhǎng)批準(zhǔn)建造一座更寬、設(shè)計(jì)更精良的大橋的話，則既不會(huì)發(fā)生大橋受損，也不會(huì)有交通擁堵的問(wèn)題。對(duì)于該論據(jù)，論述者也沒(méi)有提出任何證明依據(jù)。一個(gè)眾所周知的事實(shí)是，所有橋梁的狀況都會(huì)每況愈下，尤其是經(jīng)歷了20年這樣長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間之后，無(wú)論它們當(dāng)時(shí)設(shè)計(jì)得是如何精良。信函作者也沒(méi)能提供任何能起到支持作用的證據(jù)來(lái)證明，人們可以用大致同等數(shù)量的公共款項(xiàng)建起一座更為持久的、交通問(wèn)題更少的大橋。有可能的是，一座橋面更寬的大橋所遭受的損壞可能更多，而非更少。也有可能是，所投入的資金將更大，無(wú)論所使用的是公共款項(xiàng)還是私人資金。
再者，論述者提到跨河大橋比上游河段更長(zhǎng)的Derby大橋老化的速度來(lái)得快。這一毫無(wú)根據(jù)的論點(diǎn)沒(méi)能考慮到導(dǎo)致兩座大橋老化狀況差異的其他有可能的因素，如交通負(fù)荷、橋址、以及其他環(huán)境方面的變數(shù)。例如，Derby大橋受到了更好的保護(hù)，受自然因素影響較少，很少有重型卡車類的交通工具通過(guò)其上。除了其武斷的個(gè)人看法以外，信函作者沒(méi)有拿出任何依據(jù)來(lái)在兩座大橋之間作出直接的比較。
最后，信函作者提及Durant市長(zhǎng)的"玩忽職守及浪費(fèi)".該作者所援引的有關(guān)Durant市長(zhǎng)的唯一的所作所為僅是早先時(shí)候?qū)Υ髽蚪ㄔ斓呐鷾?zhǔn)，而這一點(diǎn)既不能證明任何的玩忽職守，也不能證明任何浪費(fèi)。該句子本身包含了一個(gè)不根據(jù)前提的推理——首先討論過(guò)去幾年中氣候嚴(yán)酷的冬天，緊接著責(zé)怪Durant先生的浪費(fèi)與疏忽。在作者的論述中，這一譴責(zé)既無(wú)正當(dāng)理由，也缺乏依據(jù)。
概而言之，信函作者所做的只是提出一些毫無(wú)根據(jù)的責(zé)怪，而沒(méi)有拿出任何真正的依據(jù)來(lái)證明其論點(diǎn)。要使其論點(diǎn)更具說(shuō)服力，該作者應(yīng)拿出證據(jù)來(lái)證明，Durant市長(zhǎng)所批準(zhǔn)的是一份有嚴(yán)重失誤的大橋建設(shè)設(shè)計(jì)方案，或一個(gè)沒(méi)有資質(zhì)的建筑公司，從而導(dǎo)致了大橋的受毀和交通問(wèn)題。該作者也應(yīng)該提供有支持作用的細(xì)節(jié)，以表明大橋受損程度超乎尋常，并且是因?yàn)镈urant市長(zhǎng)決定使用劣質(zhì)建筑材料或采用了一份蹩腳的設(shè)計(jì)方案而直接造成的。在沒(méi)有更為充分的依據(jù)這一條件下，該作者的論點(diǎn)無(wú)法令人置信，并且也顯得沒(méi)有得到充分的論證。
Issue寫(xiě)作范文詳細(xì)解析相關(guān)文章：
