The author give an explanation of the charities’ “non-average” gaining of donations that educational institutions are less in need of donations than are other kinds of institutions. However, the author provides neither enough evidence about the unfair condition of donations nor sufficient support to his reason for the phenomenon.

As cited, Religious groups and environmental groups gained 55 percent of donations in the last year while educational institution experienced a 3 percent increase in donations. Obviously, the author try to present that educational institution gained less donations than other kind of institution, which, however, has nothing relevant to what the author provided. Without mentioning any other type of organizations, the article has no negative evidence that the rest part of the total donations could not be gain by environmental, which takes up 45 percent of all, which is much more than religious groups’ 30 percent. After all, we have no idea about the donations number of educational institution last year. If only the number is big enough, what we assume is totally possible. What is more, the number of those organizations involved in this poll is just 200 while the total number nonprofit groups is not provided. We can not assure the validity of the poll’s result which can affect our conclusion very much.

The author claims that differences in donation rates must result from the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than are other kinds of institutions. To find the reason of the differed donation rates, one should make a full analysis of changes in donations rates in the past. When did the differences occur significantly? Once we determine when the difference began, we can try to identify which of factors present at the time combined to set the donations difference in. However, the author has not done any similar work, or has not provide at least, which unfortunately makes his convincing unsound.

In summary, to give explanation to certain phenomenon, there are two important things. For one thing, one should carefully identify what the phenomenon exactly is, when did it occur and provide available factors which can contribute to the phenomenon. For another thing, one should make full analysis and compare to find out the real reason other than simply select one as the final answer. As far as this article is concerned, the author do neither above well, as a result, the conclusion is not credible for me.

上午 历史类pooh工具箱
下午 孙远工具箱 传媒类
晚上练笔 两篇

It seems wise for the trucking companies to raise their drivers’ pay and limit the overall numbers of hours their drivers drive in order to reduce their accident rate. However, the author does not provide sufficient support to his conclusion.

Quoting the evidence of the Longhaul trucking company, the author try to present that by following these policies of Longhaul, one trucking company can easily reduce its accident rate, which need further consideration. For one thing, we have got no signal that after these policies being granted, the accident rate of the Longhaul trucking company did declined. What the author provides is that the number of accidents in the next year is half of the year before. But as we all know, the accident number and the accident rate is totally different concepts. With the total miles of driving declined, it is very likely to have a higher accident rate than before even though the number of accident declined too. For another thing, there is no evidence that these policies do have something to do with the reduced number of accidents. Are these things cited in the article all the company has done to improve the accident condition? Are there any Global factors such as an economical crisis which make the trucking market considerably shrink so that the total number of truck-driving reduced as well as the total accidents number? To establish a relationship between the phenomenon and the changes, the author should show a full analysis.

The survey about the highest-paid drivers who has least possibility to have an accident does not lend any support to the conclusion too. To arrive at the final conclusion, it is necessary that it is the highest-pay which makes the least possibility of accident, which is, however, obviously not the case. Truck accident is something can change one’s life markedly–for example, making one dies. In another word, driving carefully is something very relative to the driver herself/himself, it is impossible for a driver to not drive carefully risking losing her/his life just because of low salary. When is driving, whether the driver is careful depends usually on an instinct skill other than fully considered conduct. So, the correct explanation should be it is because their careful driving that those drivers get the highest-pay, which ironically undermine the author’s reasoning.

Reducing accident rate is one of the most important things of a trucking company, it is direct relative to the total cost of a trucking company and consequently relative to the final profit. To reduce their accident rate, the author should make further consideration. For example, among the policies the Longhaul trucking company applied, there was an item that the company increased its training standards. Driving is some kind of skill, it can not be improved easily by emotion but through long-term training. This policy may be the core-policy which contributes to the low accident number very much. However, the author pays no attention to this element.

In summary, to make suggestion for reducing accident rate, the author should provide some practical method with fully proofs of their feasibility. As far as this article is concern, I can not agree with the author merely based on his viewpoint.

Argument1

1、作者对当地居民对健康生活关注程度的判断是没有说服力的。作者仅用某几种产品、某几种培训班的火爆来偷换“健康生活”的概念；并且没有提到火爆的原因，可能只是因为培训班规模实在太小造成了火爆的假相。小孩那个例子更是反例，从小锻炼可能将来更加的不需要健康产品。

2、即便当地居民对健康生活足够关注，并不能得到该公司在此一定可以大幅盈利的结论。公司的主要产品是健康食物(或者其他)，而健康产品有很多种，对健康生活的关注也就随之有很多种，所以高关注度不一定导致对该公司特定健康产品的高需求。

3、确定分店的位置，需要更精确详细的调查，是否存在条件更好的地区适合开分店？当地有没有没有调查过的劣势条件？ 可能当地购买力水平很低，而以前并没有在物价水平如此低的地方开设过这样的分店而导致经验不适用：物价水平低导致销售量很大也无法提升营业额。或者当地虽然普遍关注度比较高，但是居民总数并不多等等。

Argument2

1、没有证据表明，是布置和染色方案带来了地产增值。

2、即使是布置和染色方案的功劳，由于地域和时间具体条件的不同，该方法不一定适用。

3、想要地产增值可以有很多正常的办法，不用半疯癫的刷浆玩儿。

 Argument79

1、Longhaul公司的举措无法证明是提高驾驶员工资对降低事故率有帮助。

2、进一步的，这个survey的结果并不能反映收入高就能令驾驶员安全驾驶。

3、作者简单考虑了两点而忽视了曾经提到的training standards等其他要素，没有对其他可能的要素进行预测分析。