Argument 147:
The following appeared in an editorial in a business magazine.

"Although the sales of Whirlwind video games have declined over the past two years, a recent survey of video-game players suggests that this sales trend is about to be reversed. The survey asked video-game players what features they thought were most important in a video game. According to the survey, players prefer games that provide lifelike graphics, which require the most up-to-date computers. Whirlwind has just introduced several such games with an extensive advertising campaign directed at people 10 to 25 years old, the age-group most likely to play video games. It follows, then, that the sales of Whirlwind video games are likely to increase dramatically in the next few months."

Argument:
The author of the editorial concludes that the video games sales of Whirlwind will increase in the future. To substantiate the conclusion, the editorial cites the result of a survey that suggests that the most appealing feature of the video games is the lifelike graphics. Moreover, the author also point out that the Whirlwind has introduce some new video games with lifelike graphics and begins some advertising campaign to appeal the youth 10 to 25 years old. However, close consideration the evidence reveals some critical logical flaws in the editorial.

To begin with, the author fails to prove the reliability of the survey cited in the editorial. Since the description too vague to informative and lack some crucial details such as the number of the samples and what portion of people actually responded to the survey. It is entirely possible that the video-game surveyed can not representative of all the people playing video games. Since the information of the survey in the editorial is too limited, I can not accept any conclusion drawn from the survey.

Even assuming the survey exactly reflect the general preference towards the video games with lifelike graphics, the conclusion of the author rests on the unfair assumption that the lack of the video game with lifelike graphics is attributable to the decline of the sales of Whirlwind. However, since the editorial provide no evidence to support the assumption, it is entirely possible that some other problems lead to the decline. Perhaps the service quality of Whirlwind is bad and the price of their game is too high. Without better information to rule out these and other possible explanation for the decline, any further conclusion is basically unfounded.

Finally, the author further infer the increase of the sales of the Whirlwind on the basis of the fact that Whirlwind has introduced the games having appealing graphics and begin advertising campaign to attract more video-game players. However, this poor cause-and-effect relationship can not be substantiated from the editorials. Perhaps the games that are introduced by Whirlwind can not meet the general preference of young players in some aspects. Or perhaps the campaign does not carefully designed so that few players are interested in it. If so, the sales of Whirlwind might continue keeping unchanged. Since the author does not account for the alternative possibility, the conclusion definitely turns out to be rather unjustified.

In sum up, the author fails to convince me that the sales of Whirlwind will increase in the future. To better support the conclusion, the author must provide more valuable information of survey cited in the editorial. Furthermore, the author also needs to offer more powerful evidence to prove that the implementation of Whirlwind will actually change the sales condition in the next years.

The author of the editorial concludes that the video games sales of Whirlwind will increase in the future. To substantiate the conclusion, the editorial cites the result of a survey that suggests that the most appealing feature of the video games is the lifelike graphics. Moreover, the author also point out that the Whirlwind has introduce d some new video games with lifelike graphics and begins some advertising campaign to appeal the youth 10 to 25 years old. However, close consideration of the evidence reveals some critical logical flaws in the editorial.

To begin with, the author fails to prove the reliability of the survey cited in the editorial. Since the description is too vague to be informative and lack s some crucial details such as the number of the samples and what portion of people actually responded to the survey. It is entirely possible that the video-game surveyed can not be representative of all the people playing video games. Since the information of the survey in the editorial is too limited, I can not accept any conclusion drawn from the survey.
video-games players surveyed?

Even assuming the survey exactly reflect the general preference towards the video games with lifelike graphics, the conclusion of the author rests on the unfair assumption that the lack of the video game with lifelike graphics is attributable to the decline of the sales of Whirlwind. However, since the editorial provide s no evidence to support the assumption, it is entirely possible that some other problems lead to the decline. Perhaps the service quality of Whirlwind is bad and the price of their games is too high. Without better information to rule out these and other possible explanation s for the decline, any further conclusion is basically unfounded.

Finally, the author further infers the increase of the sales of the Whirlwind on the basis of the fact that Whirlwind has introduced the games having appealing graphics and began advertising campaign to attract more video-game players. However, this poor cause-and-effect relationship can not be substantiated from the editorials. Perhaps the games that are introduced by Whirlwind can not meet the general preference of young players in some aspects. Or perhaps the campaign does not carefully designed so that few players are interested in it. If so, the sales of Whirlwind might continue keeping unchanged. Since the author does not account for the alternative possibility, the conclusion definitely turns out to be rather unjustified.

In sum up, the author fails to convince me that the sales of Whirlwind will increase in the future. To better support the conclusion, the author must provide more valuable information of survey cited in the editorial. Furthermore, the author also needs to offer more powerful evidence to prove that the implementation of Whirlwind will actually change the sales condition in the next years.
In sum up?  To sum up/In sum

感觉你的结构挺清晰的，好好学习一下，不同的人出发点不一样，真的有利于改文章拓宽思路
呵呵，只是改了一些小语法错误，如有出入见谅：）

我的Arg 147，请拍
http://bbs.taisha.org/thread-648000-1-1.html
写了两次

谢谢，刚开始，老是大错字，也经常出语法错误，真头疼。。