a carbon tax beats vacuum ban范文开头段简单背景介绍后总结了文章主旨并且罗列后面分析切入点

Vacuumcleanershelppeoplealotinkeeourhouseclean.However,theEuropeanUnionisplanningtostripthisconveniencefrompeoplebysettingaharshlimit.Inthearticle,“ACarbonTaxBeatsaVacuumBan”,SitaNatarajSlavovarguesagainsttheseregulationsandpresentsusabetterwaytosettletheissue.Usingrelevantallusions,differenttones,andtangibleevidence,shepersuadestheaudiencetotakeherside.Aftertheintroductionoftheissueofvacuumcleaner,writerusessomeallusionstohelpherillustratethereasonsbehindherobjectiontotheban.Firstly,inparagraph2,shealludesto“anincandescentlightbulb”and“agasguzzlingcar”,thingspeoplealwaysuseineverydaylifeandrepresentativesoftherestrictiononpeople’schoices.Byalludingtothoseregulationsonotheritems,Slavovmeanstoraisepeople’sawarenessthatthesamekindoffreedom-stripbehaviorisbefallingusagainandtoevokepeople’saversiontothecurrentbanonvacuumcleaner.Theseallusionscombinedwithrhetoricalquestionsrevealthenegativeimpactoftheban--”consumers’choices”areseverelyrestricted--andforcereaderstoconsidertherationalityofthisregulation.Similarly,whendescribingthata“carbontax”isbetterthan“vacuumcleanerbansandotherregulations”,writeremploysanotherallusion.Shereferencesatermoneconomics,“reboundeffects”,whichreferstosomesideeffectscausedbycertainrules.Withthisallusion,readerscaneasilyperceivetheflawbehindthevacuumscleanerban.Sincethisbanmayleadtootherunintendedconsequencesjustlike“tighterstandards”do,peoplemaybemorelikelytofavorthecarbontaxplanproposedbytheauthor.个经济学术语。作者通过allusion的时候，使得复杂的概念变得更为简单易懂。Slavovalsoappliesavarietyoftonestoachievespecificgoalsatvariousstages.Withsentenceslike“Wantanincandescentlightbulb?Toobad...bytighterfueleconomystandards”,Slavovcreatesasomewhatcriticalandironicaltone,lettingpeopletoseetheubiquityofirrationalregulations.Ontheotherhand,whenpresentinghersolutiontotheproblem,thetoneshiftsintoajoyfulandoptimisticone,whenshestates“Fortunay,there’sabettersolution”.Thisdelightfultoneimplantsapositiveimageofthecarbontaxplaninreaders’mind,causingthemtobemorereceptivetoherproposal.Besidesthoseminutedifferencesoftones,thetoneofthepassageasawholeisquiteobjectiveandneutral.Forinstance,theauthordoesn’tdismisspotentialcounterargumentsandonlyexpoundsherownideas,shestatesthat“Backersofsuchregulationcounterthat,whenpeoplebuypowerfulvacuum...Toclimatechange”.Also,sheconcedesthat“these“reboundeffects”mightnotbebigenoughtoactuallycauseanetincreaseinemissions”whensheisdescribingthepotentialflawoftheban.Theapplicationofanobjectivetoneisoftenmoreeffectivethanshowingbiasandaggressionwhenitcomestochangingareader'sviewbecauseitsilentlybreaksdownareader'swallofdefenseandhelpsthereadertobemoreacceptabletonewideas.Noargumentisfullyauthenticwithoutsubstantialevidence,Slavovdoesn’tforgetthisandutilizesarangeofevidencetobackherideas.Intheverybeginningofthepassage,authorcitesspecificstatistics--“...1600wattsofpower...900...1800”.Thejuxtapositionofnumbershelppeopletorealizethat“averagevacuumcleanersoldtoday”willbebannedbecauseofthenewrule.Moreover,tolendsupporttohercarbontaxplan,shecontendsthat“Economistsofallpoliticalstripesagreeonthesepoints”.Shefollowsupontheideawitha“2011pollofleadingeconomistsrepresentingavarietyof...”.Theinclusionofexpertsservesasavehicletoconvincepeoplethatthisproposalisnotonlya alpropaganda,insteaditisaconsensusagreedby“90percent”ofthescholars.However,theauthorcanmakeherstatementmorepersuasiveifshecanexplicitlynamesomefamouseconomistswhoarefamiliartopeople.作为一篇写的议，肯定是少不了的。这里我分析了大家所熟悉的数据和调查。但是，除此以外，我了文章中一个可以改进的地方。大家如果去分析原文第8段会在文章的分析中，我们大部分情况下都是分析文章的之处。其实，根据指南，我们Tosumup,despitethelackofsomereferencestospecificsupportersofherplan,Slavovappliescogentallusions,effectivetones,andsupportiveevidence,tobuildacompellingargumentthatthevacuumcleanerbanshouldbesupplantedbyacarbontax.(746words)Inanefforttofightoffnegativeimpactsofcarbonemissionsontheenvironment,theEUhasdecidedtoimposeastrictbanonvacuumcleanersusingmorethan1,600wattsofpower.Isthistherightactiontotake?Obviously,SitaSlavov,aUSNewscontributor,doesnotsidewiththedecisioninherarticleACarbonTaxBeatsaVacuumBan,inwhichsheclaimstharbontaxwouldworkasabettersolutionthantheban.Sheemployslogicalreasoningandmainlyrhetoricalquestioningtoswaythereadersintoherside.Logicalreasoningservesasthemostpowerfulstrategyutilizedtopresentreasonsagainstthevacuumbanandforthetax.Statingthecarbontaxasabettersolution,Slavovstartsherclaimoffwiththereason–thetaxis“settoreflectthespillovercostsofcarbonemissions.”Thisreasonclearlyaddressesthevacuumbanbackers’claimthatthosewho“buypowerfulvacuumcleanersandincandescentbulbs”donotconsidertheirspillovercosts,sothereaderswouldbegintodeemthetaxasatleastoneofthealternativestotheban.Whatwouldpersuadetheaudiencetobelievethatthetaxisabetteroptionistheauthor’snextargument:itgivescustomersfreechoice.Inademocraticcountry,noonewouldliketobetoldorforcedby“ernmentbureaucrats”todotheirbusiness,evenasmalldecisionlikebuyingenergy-efficientvacuumcleanersandlightbulbs.Anotherargument,thetaxingdirectlyattherealculprit–carbon,wouldenablethereaderstorealizethatthebanmighthaveamajordefect:the“reboundeffects”coulddecreaseitseffectiveness.Havingrealizedthepoint,theaudiencewouldbemorereluctanttosupporttheban.Thefinalstatementmadebytheauthortobolsterherclaimwouldfunctionasthelaststrawtobreakthebackoftheban.Inthestatement,Slavovmentionsthat“economistsofallpoliticalstripes”agreewithherpoints,citinga2011polltoaddsoundnessofherclaim.Thosereadytotakehersidewouldfeelthattheyarenotalone,backedupbyalltheseprofessionals.Byrepeatedlypointingouttheincredibilityofthebanproponents’reasonsandthedrawbacksoftheban,theauthorestablishesandstrengthenssolidarityandauthenticityofherclaimthatthetaxisabetterchoice.Logicalreasoningaside,rhetoricalquestioningisflexiblyemployedtoplaytothereaders’emotion.Thetworhetoricalquestions,“Wantanincandescentlightbulb?”and“Howaboutagasguzzlingcar?”,demonstratehowtheernmentrudelyintrudespeople’sdailylifeandmakesdecisionsforthem.Thiswouldarousethereaders’distaste,asitisridiculousthatsomeoneelseratherthanoneselfcouldmeddleinone’sownaffairs.Therefore,theywoulddefiniysaynotothenextquestion,“Dowereallywanttheernmentlinguswhatkindofvacuumcleanerorlightbulbtobuy?”.Whenreadingthes