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 authors 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 bridges 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 Durants decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the authors point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.

下述文字乃一封致《Atticus都市報》的信函：前市長Durant應(yīng)向全體Atticus 市民道歉。無論是將Atticus 市和Hartley市連結(jié)起來的跨河大橋所遭到的毀壞，還是我們在大橋上長期以來所經(jīng)歷的交通問題，實際上都是由Durant 市長在20年之前一手鑄成的。無論如何，是他批準(zhǔn)了大橋的開工建設(shè)。如果他所批準(zhǔn)建設(shè)的大橋更寬一些，設(shè)計得更精良一些，而所投入其上的公共款項大致相等的話，那么，無論是大橋的受損，還是交通擁堵問題均不會發(fā)生。然則，在過去20年期間，跨河大橋現(xiàn)在則遠比上游河段上長度遠長得多的Derby河大橋更為快速地遭到毀損。盡管過去幾年中冬天的日子甚為嚴(yán)酷，但我們絕不能原諒Durant 市長的玩忽職守和浪費。

本信函的作者在其論述中得出結(jié)論，認為前市長Durant 應(yīng)向Atticus全市作出正式道歉，因為對于過去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市長造成了大橋上長期以來的交通問題。作者陳述道，由于Durant市長批準(zhǔn)了現(xiàn)在這座大橋的開工建設(shè)，而沒有批準(zhǔn)一座更寬、設(shè)計更精良的大橋，故他在20年之前實際上就已鑄成了上述這些問題。提出這些論點的作者可以對Durant市長有此個人怨仇，但論述中所陳述的各項內(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，僅僅因為他批準(zhǔn)了大橋的建造這一行為本身。但作者沒能提供證據(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，而并沒有認可該大橋的設(shè)計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導(dǎo)致大橋受毀或造成任何交通問題。

　　此外，論述者得出結(jié)論，認為如果Durant市長批準(zhǔn)建造一座更寬、設(shè)計更精良的大橋的話，則既不會發(fā)生大橋受損，也不會有交通擁堵的問題。對于該論據(jù)，論述者也沒有提出任何證明依據(jù)。一個眾所周知的事實是，所有橋梁的狀況都會每況愈下，尤其是經(jīng)歷了20年這樣長的時間之后，無論它們當(dāng)時設(shè)計得是如何精良。信函作者也沒能提供任何能起到支持作用的證據(jù)來證明，人們可以用大致同等數(shù)量的公共款項建起一座更為持久的、交通問題更少的大橋。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，無論所使用的是公共款項還是私人資金。

　　再者，論述者提到跨河大橋比上游河段更長的Derby大橋老化的速度來得快。這一毫無根據(jù)的論點沒能考慮到導(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，受自然因素影響較少，很少有重型卡車類的交通工具通過其上。除了其武斷的個人看法以外，信函作者沒有拿出任何依據(jù)來在兩座大橋之間作出直接的比較。

　　最后，信函作者提及Durant市長的玩忽職守及浪費.該作者所援引的有關(guān)Durant市長的唯一的所作所為僅是早先時候?qū)Υ髽蚪ㄔ斓呐鷾?zhǔn)，而這一點既不能證明任何的玩忽職守，也不能證明任何浪費。該句子本身包含了一個不根據(jù)前提的推理――首先討論過去幾年中氣候嚴(yán)酷的冬天，緊接著責(zé)怪Durant先生的浪費與疏忽。在作者的論述中，這一譴責(zé)既無正當(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根據(jù)的責(zé)怪，而沒有拿出任何真正的依據(jù)來證明其論點。要使其論點更具說服力，該作者應(yīng)拿出證據(jù)來證明，Durant市長所批準(zhǔn)的是一份有嚴(yán)重失誤的大橋建設(shè)設(shè)計方案，或一個沒有資質(zhì)的建筑公司，從而導(dǎo)致了大橋的受毀和交通問題。該作者也應(yīng)該提供有支持作用的細節(jié)，以表明大橋受損程度超乎尋常，并且是因為Durant市長決定使用劣質(zhì)建筑材料或采用了一份蹩腳的設(shè)計方案而直接造成的。在沒有更為充分的依據(jù)這一條件下，該作者的論點無法令人置信，并且也顯得沒有得到充分的論證。

　　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 authors 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 bridges 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 Durants decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the authors point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.

下述文字乃一封致《Atticus都市報》的信函：前市長Durant應(yīng)向全體Atticus 市民道歉。無論是將Atticus 市和Hartley市連結(jié)起來的跨河大橋所遭到的毀壞，還是我們在大橋上長期以來所經(jīng)歷的交通問題，實際上都是由Durant 市長在20年之前一手鑄成的。無論如何，是他批準(zhǔn)了大橋的開工建設(shè)。如果他所批準(zhǔn)建設(shè)的大橋更寬一些，設(shè)計得更精良一些，而所投入其上的公共款項大致相等的話，那么，無論是大橋的受損，還是交通擁堵問題均不會發(fā)生。然則，在過去20年期間，跨河大橋現(xiàn)在則遠比上游河段上長度遠長得多的Derby河大橋更為快速地遭到毀損。盡管過去幾年中冬天的日子甚為嚴(yán)酷，但我們絕不能原諒Durant 市長的玩忽職守和浪費。

本信函的作者在其論述中得出結(jié)論，認為前市長Durant 應(yīng)向Atticus全市作出正式道歉，因為對于過去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市長造成了大橋上長期以來的交通問題。作者陳述道，由于Durant市長批準(zhǔn)了現(xiàn)在這座大橋的開工建設(shè)，而沒有批準(zhǔn)一座更寬、設(shè)計更精良的大橋，故他在20年之前實際上就已鑄成了上述這些問題。提出這些論點的作者可以對Durant市長有此個人怨仇，但論述中所陳述的各項內(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，僅僅因為他批準(zhǔn)了大橋的建造這一行為本身。但作者沒能提供證據(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，而并沒有認可該大橋的設(shè)計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導(dǎo)致大橋受毀或造成任何交通問題。

　　此外，論述者得出結(jié)論，認為如果Durant市長批準(zhǔn)建造一座更寬、設(shè)計更精良的大橋的話，則既不會發(fā)生大橋受損，也不會有交通擁堵的問題。對于該論據(jù)，論述者也沒有提出任何證明依據(jù)。一個眾所周知的事實是，所有橋梁的狀況都會每況愈下，尤其是經(jīng)歷了20年這樣長的時間之后，無論它們當(dāng)時設(shè)計得是如何精良。信函作者也沒能提供任何能起到支持作用的證據(jù)來證明，人們可以用大致同等數(shù)量的公共款項建起一座更為持久的、交通問題更少的大橋。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，無論所使用的是公共款項還是私人資金。

　　再者，論述者提到跨河大橋比上游河段更長的Derby大橋老化的速度來得快。這一毫無根據(jù)的論點沒能考慮到導(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，受自然因素影響較少，很少有重型卡車類的交通工具通過其上。除了其武斷的個人看法以外，信函作者沒有拿出任何依據(jù)來在兩座大橋之間作出直接的比較。

　　最后，信函作者提及Durant市長的玩忽職守及浪費.該作者所援引的有關(guān)Durant市長的唯一的所作所為僅是早先時候?qū)Υ髽蚪ㄔ斓呐鷾?zhǔn)，而這一點既不能證明任何的玩忽職守，也不能證明任何浪費。該句子本身包含了一個不根據(jù)前提的推理――首先討論過去幾年中氣候嚴(yán)酷的冬天，緊接著責(zé)怪Durant先生的浪費與疏忽。在作者的論述中，這一譴責(zé)既無正當(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根據(jù)的責(zé)怪，而沒有拿出任何真正的依據(jù)來證明其論點。要使其論點更具說服力，該作者應(yīng)拿出證據(jù)來證明，Durant市長所批準(zhǔn)的是一份有嚴(yán)重失誤的大橋建設(shè)設(shè)計方案，或一個沒有資質(zhì)的建筑公司，從而導(dǎo)致了大橋的受毀和交通問題。該作者也應(yīng)該提供有支持作用的細節(jié)，以表明大橋受損程度超乎尋常，并且是因為Durant市長決定使用劣質(zhì)建筑材料或采用了一份蹩腳的設(shè)計方案而直接造成的。在沒有更為充分的依據(jù)這一條件下，該作者的論點無法令人置信，并且也顯得沒有得到充分的論證。