The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper

　　Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant.

　　Sample Essay

　　The author of this letter concludes in his or her argument that former Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus because he is at fault for damage that has occurred over a twenty-year time span to the River Bridge. The author also blames Mayor Durant for long-time traffic problems on the bridge, stating that Durant actually caused these problems twenty years before because he approved the construction of the bridge and did not approve a wider and better-designed bridge. The arguer may have a personal vendetta against Mayor Durant but the elements stated in the argument do not support such an accusation.

　　First of all, the author squarely places blame on Mayor Durant for the simple act of approving the construction of the bridge. There is no evidence presented that merely approving the building of the bridge had anything whatsoever to do with the damage that has occurred or the traffic problems on the bridge. It is entirely possible that Mr. Durant simply approved the idea of constructing the bridge and not the design of the bridge or the contractor that built it. Simply approving the construction of the bridge does not in and of itself cause damage to that bridge or any resulting traffic problems.

　　In addition, the arguer concludes that if Mayor Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge that there would be no damage or traffic problems, an argument for which there is no basis of proof offered. It is a well-known fact that bridges are subject to deterioration, particularly over a period of twenty years, no matter how well designed they may be. The author also fails to offer any supporting evidence to show that a more durable bridge with fewer traffic problems could have been built for approximately the same amount of public money. It seems likely that a wider bridge would have more damage problems rather than fewer, and probably would have cost more as well, whether public or private funds were used.

　　Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the River Bridge has deteriorated much more rapidly than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. This groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons for the discrepancy in the deterioration of the two bridges such as traffic loads, location and other environmental variables. It is possible that the Derby Bridge was much more protected from the elements and rarely used by heavy truck traffic, for example. The author gives no basis for a direct comparison between the two bridges other than his or her personal opinion.

　　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 authors 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 bridges 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 Durants decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the authors point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.

　　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。

　　本信函的作者在其论述中得出结论，认为前市长Durant 应向Atticus全市作出正式道歉，因为对于过去20年中跨河大桥所遭受的损坏他应引咎自责。作者亦责怪Durant市长造成了大桥上长期以来的交通问题。作者陈述道，由于Durant市长批准了现在这座大桥的开工建设，而没有批准一座更宽、设计更精良的大桥，故他在20年之前实际上就已铸成了上述这些问题。提出这些论点的作者可以对Durant市长有此个人怨仇，但论述中所陈述的各项内容并不能为这样一种责怪提供依据。

　　首先，作者斩钉截铁地将罪责归咎于Durant市长，仅仅因为他批准了大桥的建造这一行为本身。但作者没能提供证据证明，仅仅只是批准该座大桥的建造这一行为与大桥本身所遭受的毁坏或大桥上的交通问题有任何必然的联系。完全有可能的是，Durant先生仅仅只是准许了建造这座大桥的想法，而并没有认可该大桥的设计或建造该大桥的承包商。纯粹去批准大桥的建造，这一行为就其本身而言并不会导致大桥受毁或造成任何交通问题。

　　此外，论述者得出结论，认为如果Durant市长批准建造一座更宽、设计更精良的大桥的话，则既不会发生大桥受损，也不会有交通拥堵的问题。对于该论据，论述者也没有提出任何证明依据。一个众所周知的事实是，所有桥梁的状况都会每况愈下，尤其是经历了20年这样长的时间之后，无论它们当时设计得是如何精良。信函作者也没能提供任何能起到支持作用的证据来证明，人们可以用大致同等数量的公共款项建起一座更为持久的、交通问题更少的大桥。有可能的是，一座桥面更宽的大桥所遭受的损坏可能更多，而非更少。也有可能是，所投入的资金将更大，无论所使用的是公共款项还是私人资金。

　　再者，论述者提到跨河大桥比上游河段更长的Derby大桥老化的速度来得快。这一毫无根据的论点没能考虑到导致两座大桥老化状况差异的其他有可能的因素，如交通负荷、桥址、以及其他环境方面的变数。例如，Derby大桥受到了更好的保护，受自然因素影响较少，很少有重型卡车类的交通工具通过其上。除了其武断的个人看法以外，信函作者没有拿出任何依据来在两座大桥之间作出直接的比较。

　　最后，信函作者提及Durant市长的玩忽职守及浪费.该作者所援引的有关Durant市长的唯一的所作所为仅是早先时候对大桥建造的批准，而这一点既不能证明任何的玩忽职守，也不能证明任何浪费。该句子本身包含了一个不根据前提的推理首先讨论过去几年中气候严酷的冬天，紧接着责怪Durant先生的浪费与疏忽。在作者的论述中，这一谴责既无正当理由，也缺乏依据。

　　概而言之，信函作者所做的只是提出一些毫无根据的责怪，而没有拿出任何真正的依据来证明其论点。要使其论点更具说服力，该作者应拿出证据来证明，Durant市长所批准的是一份有严重失误的大桥建设设计方案，或一个没有资质的建筑公司，从而导致了大桥的受毁和交通问题。该作者也应该提供有支持作用的细节，以表明大桥受损程度超乎寻常，并且是因为Durant市长决定使用劣质建筑材料或采用了一份蹩脚的设计方案而直接造成的。在没有更为充分的依据这一条件下，该作者的论点无法令人置信，并且也显得没有得到充分的论证。

　　The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper

　　Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant.

　　Sample Essay

　　The author of this letter concludes in his or her argument that former Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus because he is at fault for damage that has occurred over a twenty-year time span to the River Bridge. The author also blames Mayor Durant for long-time traffic problems on the bridge, stating that Durant actually caused these problems twenty years before because he approved the construction of the bridge and did not approve a wider and better-designed bridge. The arguer may have a personal vendetta against Mayor Durant but the elements stated in the argument do not support such an accusation.

　　First of all, the author squarely places blame on Mayor Durant for the simple act of approving the construction of the bridge. There is no evidence presented that merely approving the building of the bridge had anything whatsoever to do with the damage that has occurred or the traffic problems on the bridge. It is entirely possible that Mr. Durant simply approved the idea of constructing the bridge and not the design of the bridge or the contractor that built it. Simply approving the construction of the bridge does not in and of itself cause damage to that bridge or any resulting traffic problems.

　　In addition, the arguer concludes that if Mayor Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge that there would be no damage or traffic problems, an argument for which there is no basis of proof offered. It is a well-known fact that bridges are subject to deterioration, particularly over a period of twenty years, no matter how well designed they may be. The author also fails to offer any supporting evidence to show that a more durable bridge with fewer traffic problems could have been built for approximately the same amount of public money. It seems likely that a wider bridge would have more damage problems rather than fewer, and probably would have cost more as well, whether public or private funds were used.

　　Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the River Bridge has deteriorated much more rapidly than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. This groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons for the discrepancy in the deterioration of the two bridges such as traffic loads, location and other environmental variables. It is possible that the Derby Bridge was much more protected from the elements and rarely used by heavy truck traffic, for example. The author gives no basis for a direct comparison between the two bridges other than his or her personal opinion.

　　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 authors 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 bridges 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 Durants decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the authors point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.

　　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。

　　本信函的作者在其论述中得出结论，认为前市长Durant 应向Atticus全市作出正式道歉，因为对于过去20年中跨河大桥所遭受的损坏他应引咎自责。作者亦责怪Durant市长造成了大桥上长期以来的交通问题。作者陈述道，由于Durant市长批准了现在这座大桥的开工建设，而没有批准一座更宽、设计更精良的大桥，故他在20年之前实际上就已铸成了上述这些问题。提出这些论点的作者可以对Durant市长有此个人怨仇，但论述中所陈述的各项内容并不能为这样一种责怪提供依据。

　　首先，作者斩钉截铁地将罪责归咎于Durant市长，仅仅因为他批准了大桥的建造这一行为本身。但作者没能提供证据证明，仅仅只是批准该座大桥的建造这一行为与大桥本身所遭受的毁坏或大桥上的交通问题有任何必然的联系。完全有可能的是，Durant先生仅仅只是准许了建造这座大桥的想法，而并没有认可该大桥的设计或建造该大桥的承包商。纯粹去批准大桥的建造，这一行为就其本身而言并不会导致大桥受毁或造成任何交通问题。

　　此外，论述者得出结论，认为如果Durant市长批准建造一座更宽、设计更精良的大桥的话，则既不会发生大桥受损，也不会有交通拥堵的问题。对于该论据，论述者也没有提出任何证明依据。一个众所周知的事实是，所有桥梁的状况都会每况愈下，尤其是经历了20年这样长的时间之后，无论它们当时设计得是如何精良。信函作者也没能提供任何能起到支持作用的证据来证明，人们可以用大致同等数量的公共款项建起一座更为持久的、交通问题更少的大桥。有可能的是，一座桥面更宽的大桥所遭受的损坏可能更多，而非更少。也有可能是，所投入的资金将更大，无论所使用的是公共款项还是私人资金。

　　再者，论述者提到跨河大桥比上游河段更长的Derby大桥老化的速度来得快。这一毫无根据的论点没能考虑到导致两座大桥老化状况差异的其他有可能的因素，如交通负荷、桥址、以及其他环境方面的变数。例如，Derby大桥受到了更好的保护，受自然因素影响较少，很少有重型卡车类的交通工具通过其上。除了其武断的个人看法以外，信函作者没有拿出任何依据来在两座大桥之间作出直接的比较。

　　最后，信函作者提及Durant市长的玩忽职守及浪费.该作者所援引的有关Durant市长的唯一的所作所为仅是早先时候对大桥建造的批准，而这一点既不能证明任何的玩忽职守，也不能证明任何浪费。该句子本身包含了一个不根据前提的推理首先讨论过去几年中气候严酷的冬天，紧接着责怪Durant先生的浪费与疏忽。在作者的论述中，这一谴责既无正当理由，也缺乏依据。

　　概而言之，信函作者所做的只是提出一些毫无根据的责怪，而没有拿出任何真正的依据来证明其论点。要使其论点更具说服力，该作者应拿出证据来证明，Durant市长所批准的是一份有严重失误的大桥建设设计方案，或一个没有资质的建筑公司，从而导致了大桥的受毁和交通问题。该作者也应该提供有支持作用的细节，以表明大桥受损程度超乎寻常，并且是因为Durant市长决定使用劣质建筑材料或采用了一份蹩脚的设计方案而直接造成的。在没有更为充分的依据这一条件下，该作者的论点无法令人置信，并且也显得没有得到充分的论证。