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.
参考译文
下述文字乃一封致《Atticus都市报》的信函:
前市长Durant应向全体Atticus 市民道歉。无论是将Atticus 市和Hartley市连结起来的跨河大桥所遭到的毁坏,还是我们在大桥上长期以来所经历的交通问题,实际上都是由Durant 市长在20年之前一手铸成的。无论如何,是他批准了大桥的开工建设。如果他所批准建设的大桥更宽一些,设计得更精良一些,而所投入其上的公共款项大致相等的话,那么,无论是大桥的受损,还是交通拥堵问题均不会发生。然则,在过去20年期间,跨河大桥现在则远比上游河段上长度远长得多的Derby河大桥更为快速地遭到毁损。尽管过去几年中冬天的日子甚为严酷,但我们绝不能原谅Durant 市长的玩忽职守和浪费。
【出国考试GRE作文范文(六)】相关文章:
最新
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01