The following appeared in an editorial in the Seatown newspaper.
"Seatown has a large port exclusively for fishing boats, whose owners pay fees for the upkeep of the docks and for facilities for cleaning engines and repairing nets. In recent years, declining fish populations have decreased fishing revenue and forced many owners to stop fishing altogether. As a result, the port
has a high vacancy rate and port managers are considering allowing pleasure boats, including cruise ships and other large vessels, to use the port in order to increase revenue. But allowing pleasure boats into the port would be a mistake, because the fishing boats would be forced out of the port. we should preserve the port for the fishing fleet, which, unlike pleasure boats, contributes to the prosperity of Seatown."
這條我覺得它前面論述的很好啊，我還以為它要我論述改成游輪碼頭不好呢。誰知他自己先說了，我真是沒折了……
我們來看看他的邏輯假設(shè)：
我的翻譯：以前這里只是一個只允許魚船?？康母劭冢掖饕患{管理費，清潔費等。最近幾年，魚數(shù)量的減少影響漁業(yè)稅收以及同時進行撲魚的船主數(shù)量。由此導(dǎo)致的結(jié)果就是港口的空船位比率的增加。因此，有些管理人員就提出可以讓一些pleasure boats--- cruise ships & other large vessles---進港以提高稅收。但如果讓一些PLEASURE BOATS進港的話就會把魚船擠到港口外去。所以，我們應(yīng)該為魚船艦隊保留港位，因為這些艦隊可以為SEATOWN的繁榮做出貢獻，但pleasure boats則不可。
所以你看出來了，這里直接就是有一個問題在說話人的結(jié)論里面：魚船艦隊可以為繁榮做貢獻但是pleasure boats則不可以，但是他卻沒有提出具體的根據(jù)/理論來支持。而在他的陳述過程中提出的所謂pleasure boats會把魚船forced out of the port也是沒有根據(jù)來支持的。所以我們就可以從這兩點為主來conquer it.
比如我們可以提出一些假設(shè)，設(shè)想這個港口的一般的撲魚期是在冬天，因為這里的魚都是冬天產(chǎn)卵的，而一些pleasure boats選擇的?？科谑窃诖禾?，夏天還有秋天。所以我們就可以通過時間上的安排來防止fishing boats forced to be out of the port這種情況的發(fā)生。再比如，如果經(jīng)過詳細的調(diào)查和論證，在這個seatown魚數(shù)量的下降是不可恢復(fù)性的，就是說這個城市或者港口的主要職責應(yīng)該發(fā)生轉(zhuǎn)變。如果允許pleasure boats進港對稅收以及社會的貢獻和促進遠遠大于來自與fishing行業(yè)的話，這個argument的邏輯也是不完全正確的。
然后就是這個港口容量的問題?？梢詮母劭谌萘恳呀?jīng)不能適應(yīng)逐漸增長的船只?？柯蕘碚f也。還有這個港口管理方式以及收入增長點的問題，是不是還有其他的方式—--多于傳統(tǒng)的只是靠收取管理費用/稅收----來增加收入等等。
總而言之，這個題目的主要問題就是在于考慮問題的不全面性以及缺乏有利證據(jù)上。
by gteryy
In this argument, the arguer concluded that the docks should be kept for fishing boats in spite of some port managers' consideration of allowing pleasure boats, cruise ships and other large vessels to use it, basing on the explanation that in this case fishing boats, which contribute to the prosperity, will be forced out of the port. Though seemed to be a sound argument, it is in fact a weakly supported one.
In the first place, the arguer presumptuously make the assert that allowing other boats to use the port will definitely results in forcing the fishing boats out. Without enough evidence to show the certain conflict between these two usages, we cannot accept it. Actually, if the golden time for fishing is in summer, for example, it is quite possible that using the port for pleasure boats will be a effective way for increasing revenue.
Moreover, the arguer fails to take into account the factors like capacity of the port which may be a large one and consequently be able to accommodate both fishing boats and other boats. Therefore, the arguer's conclusion that either fishing boats or other boats are able to use the port exclusively is unwarranted.
Secondly, we are still suffering from lack of information to be convinced that fishing boats will by all means be more profitable than other boats, notwithstanding the high vacancy rate recently. Although fishing boats once to contribute much to the prosperity of the town, it is unwise to stick on supporting it when it is declining. It is possible that other boats may not attribute as much revenue as fishing boats do, but probably they do not cost that much too. We have to spend quite a few money on the upkeep of the docks and facilities, for repairing the nets and cleaning the engines etc.
while other boats may not abrade the dock so quickly, and do not need to be repaired so frequently, thus cost fewer money for upkeep. Even if they cost the same, it is better to receive a small amount than receive nothing, since the port is always in a vacant situation.
To sum up, the arguer has a good wish to utilize the port for more profit for his/her town, however, he/she fails to convince us to keep the port for those fishing boats rather than use it for someone else by lacking of evidence and consideration. Hence, he could be accept the suggestion to convert the usage of the port or more thoughtfully think out another way to increase revenue.
(by angeikim)
"Seatown has a large port exclusively for fishing boats, whose owners pay fees for the upkeep of the docks and for facilities for cleaning engines and repairing nets. In recent years, declining fish populations have decreased fishing revenue and forced many owners to stop fishing altogether. As a result, the port
has a high vacancy rate and port managers are considering allowing pleasure boats, including cruise ships and other large vessels, to use the port in order to increase revenue. But allowing pleasure boats into the port would be a mistake, because the fishing boats would be forced out of the port. we should preserve the port for the fishing fleet, which, unlike pleasure boats, contributes to the prosperity of Seatown."
這條我覺得它前面論述的很好啊，我還以為它要我論述改成游輪碼頭不好呢。誰知他自己先說了，我真是沒折了……
我們來看看他的邏輯假設(shè)：
我的翻譯：以前這里只是一個只允許魚船?？康母劭冢掖饕患{管理費，清潔費等。最近幾年，魚數(shù)量的減少影響漁業(yè)稅收以及同時進行撲魚的船主數(shù)量。由此導(dǎo)致的結(jié)果就是港口的空船位比率的增加。因此，有些管理人員就提出可以讓一些pleasure boats--- cruise ships & other large vessles---進港以提高稅收。但如果讓一些PLEASURE BOATS進港的話就會把魚船擠到港口外去。所以，我們應(yīng)該為魚船艦隊保留港位，因為這些艦隊可以為SEATOWN的繁榮做出貢獻，但pleasure boats則不可。
所以你看出來了，這里直接就是有一個問題在說話人的結(jié)論里面：魚船艦隊可以為繁榮做貢獻但是pleasure boats則不可以，但是他卻沒有提出具體的根據(jù)/理論來支持。而在他的陳述過程中提出的所謂pleasure boats會把魚船forced out of the port也是沒有根據(jù)來支持的。所以我們就可以從這兩點為主來conquer it.
比如我們可以提出一些假設(shè)，設(shè)想這個港口的一般的撲魚期是在冬天，因為這里的魚都是冬天產(chǎn)卵的，而一些pleasure boats選擇的?？科谑窃诖禾?，夏天還有秋天。所以我們就可以通過時間上的安排來防止fishing boats forced to be out of the port這種情況的發(fā)生。再比如，如果經(jīng)過詳細的調(diào)查和論證，在這個seatown魚數(shù)量的下降是不可恢復(fù)性的，就是說這個城市或者港口的主要職責應(yīng)該發(fā)生轉(zhuǎn)變。如果允許pleasure boats進港對稅收以及社會的貢獻和促進遠遠大于來自與fishing行業(yè)的話，這個argument的邏輯也是不完全正確的。
然后就是這個港口容量的問題?？梢詮母劭谌萘恳呀?jīng)不能適應(yīng)逐漸增長的船只?？柯蕘碚f也。還有這個港口管理方式以及收入增長點的問題，是不是還有其他的方式—--多于傳統(tǒng)的只是靠收取管理費用/稅收----來增加收入等等。
總而言之，這個題目的主要問題就是在于考慮問題的不全面性以及缺乏有利證據(jù)上。
by gteryy
In this argument, the arguer concluded that the docks should be kept for fishing boats in spite of some port managers' consideration of allowing pleasure boats, cruise ships and other large vessels to use it, basing on the explanation that in this case fishing boats, which contribute to the prosperity, will be forced out of the port. Though seemed to be a sound argument, it is in fact a weakly supported one.
In the first place, the arguer presumptuously make the assert that allowing other boats to use the port will definitely results in forcing the fishing boats out. Without enough evidence to show the certain conflict between these two usages, we cannot accept it. Actually, if the golden time for fishing is in summer, for example, it is quite possible that using the port for pleasure boats will be a effective way for increasing revenue.
Moreover, the arguer fails to take into account the factors like capacity of the port which may be a large one and consequently be able to accommodate both fishing boats and other boats. Therefore, the arguer's conclusion that either fishing boats or other boats are able to use the port exclusively is unwarranted.
Secondly, we are still suffering from lack of information to be convinced that fishing boats will by all means be more profitable than other boats, notwithstanding the high vacancy rate recently. Although fishing boats once to contribute much to the prosperity of the town, it is unwise to stick on supporting it when it is declining. It is possible that other boats may not attribute as much revenue as fishing boats do, but probably they do not cost that much too. We have to spend quite a few money on the upkeep of the docks and facilities, for repairing the nets and cleaning the engines etc.
while other boats may not abrade the dock so quickly, and do not need to be repaired so frequently, thus cost fewer money for upkeep. Even if they cost the same, it is better to receive a small amount than receive nothing, since the port is always in a vacant situation.
To sum up, the arguer has a good wish to utilize the port for more profit for his/her town, however, he/she fails to convince us to keep the port for those fishing boats rather than use it for someone else by lacking of evidence and consideration. Hence, he could be accept the suggestion to convert the usage of the port or more thoughtfully think out another way to increase revenue.
(by angeikim)