Argument 144
According to a poll of 200 charitable organizations, donations of money to nonprofit groups increased by nearly 25 percent last year, though not all charities gained equally. Religious groups gained the most (30 percent), followed by environmental groups (23 percent), whereas educational institutions experienced only a very small increase in donations (3 percent). This poll indicates that more people are willing and able to give money to charities but that funding for education is not a priority for most people. These differences in donation rates must result from the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than are other kinds of institution.
学生原稿
In this argument, the author asserts that more people are will and able to give money to charities, but most of them do not prefer educational institutions. To support his standpoint, the author cites a poll which shows donations from 200 charitable organizations increased by 25 percent last year, while educational institutions gained much less increase than religious environmental groups. He also concludes that differences in donation rates must result of the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than other kinds of institution. Close scrutiny reveals that this argument is unpersuasive .
To begin with, he does not offer definite evidence on which his conclusion depends is reliable. 200 charitable organizations might be not statistically reliable in supporting his conclusion. If 200 only possess a very small part of all charitable organizations, this poll is not convincing to support his conclusion. Additionally, if the sample is selected only from the organizations that prefer religious and environmental groups, it does not represent all charitable donations as a whole. Maybe there are a tremendous number of donors who take educational institutions as their first priority and donate much more money to educational institutions than to religious and environmental groups. Under such circumstances, his claim that funding for education is not a priority for most donors is groundless.
Meanwhile, his conclusion that differences in donation rates must result of the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than other kinds of institution is also open to question. The author may confuse two concepts, the increment in amount and percentage. It is entirely possible that educational institutions still obtain the biggest part of the money, but its amount in previous year was so great that the increment only possessed very small percentage. On the contrary, even if the increment that religious and environmental groups got was much smaller, it may still constitute a large percentage. Charities might give much more money to educational institutions because they consider educational institutions are more in need of donations.
Moreover, the author unfairly assumes that the increase of donation is due to the increase of the total number of donors. However, he does not provide sufficient evidence to prove this assumption. It is entirely possible that the total number did not change or even decreased, while the final summation still increased. Without ruling out alternative reasons, he should not draw that more people than in previous years give donations. Therefore, his claim is unconvincing.
In summary, this argument is unsound in several respects. To strengthen his standpoint, he should have to substantiate that the poll is statistically reliable in number and is representative of the all the charities. Instead of the increment in percentage, the percentage of donations that educational institutions got also should be presented. He also needs to rule out other alternative reasons why the donations increased. Lacking such information, I can hardly agree with this argument.
嘉文博译修改稿
In this argument, the author asserts that more people are willing and able to give money to charities, but that most of them do not prefer to give to educational institutions. To support his standpoint, the author cites a poll which shows donations from 200 charitable organizations increased by 25 percent last year, while educational institutions had a much smaller increase than religious environmental groups. He also concludes that differences in donation rates must be a result of the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than other kinds of institutions. Close scrutiny reveals that this argument is unpersuasive.
To begin with, he does not offer definite evidence that the poll on which his conclusion depends is reliable. 200 charitable organizations might be not statistically reliable in supporting his conclusion. If 200 organizations are only a very small part of all charitable organizations, this poll is not convincing to support his conclusion. Additionally, if the sample is selected only from the organizations that prefer religious and environmental groups, it does not represent all charitable donations as a whole. Maybe there are a tremendous number of donors who take educational institutions as their first priority and donate much more money to educational institutions than to religious and environmental groups. Under such circumstances, his claim that funding for education is not a priority for most donors is groundless.
Meanwhile, his conclusion that differences in donation rates must be a result of the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than other kinds of institution is also open to question. The author may have confused two different, the total amount of donations compared with the percentage of increase. It is entirely possible that educational institutions still obtain the biggest part of the overall money that is donated, but that the amount in previous years was so large that even a large increase in the total amount donated was a very small increase in terms of percentage. On the contrary, even if the total amount of donations that religious and environmental groups received was much smaller, it may still constitute a relatively larger percentage. People might very well give much more money to educational institutions because they consider educational institutions to be in greater need of donations.
Moreover, the author unfairly assumes that the increase in donations is due to an increase in the total number of donors. However, he does not provide sufficient evidence to prove this assumption. It is entirely possible that the total number of donors did not change or even decreased, while the total amount of donations still increased. Without ruling out alternative reasons, he should not draw the conclusion that more people than in previous years gave donations. This is yet another reason that, his claim is unconvincing.
In summary, this argument is unsound in several respects. To strengthen his standpoint, he should have to substantiate that the poll is statistically reliable in number and is representative of the all the charities. Instead of the increment in percentage, the percentage of donations that educational institutions got also should be presented. He also needs to rule out other alternative reasons why the donations increased. Lacking such information, I can hardly agree with this argument.
钱老师点评修改稿
Paragraph 1: A mostly well-written and accurate summary of the presented argument with some minor mistakes.
Paragraph 2: Mostly well-written, but again it is very important for the writer to re-read what he or she has written. I am sure that had the writer re-read the first sentence of this paragraph, he or she would have seen that this sentence did not make sense without the addition of “that the poll” to indicate what the essay author’s conclusion depended on.The third sentence was incomplete as written because the number 200 is meaningless without a modifier, and that number does not possess anything, so the word “organizations” needed to be added to make it clear exactly what is only a small part of the total number of charitable organizations.Overall though, the writing in this paragraph was good.
Paragraph 3: This paragraph had a lot more problems than the first two. It was not clear from the writing what the two different concepts were; I had to read it several times to figure it out.Additional words were needed to clarify how these two concepts were different and why it mattered regarding the author’s argument.It seems that the word “increment” may have been misunderstood here.The last sentence had a major mistake that re-reading should have caught – it is people that donate, not the charities themselves.
Paragraph 4: This is an excellent point here that should have been more fully explained.The main point and flaw of the author’s argument is contained in the sentence: This poll indicates that more people are willing and able to give money to charities but that funding for education is not a priority for most people. You picked up on the “more people” flaw but did not discuss the problem with the assertion that “funding for education is not a priority for most people.”Also, there is no proof of a direct relationship between charitable donations for education and how people prioritize funding for education, because there are other sources for educational funding than just charitable donations.Also,
Overall, there were instances of some good writing and a couple of good points made, but there were some important flaws in the argument that were not discussed.