同志们，Argument 172求斧正
The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce.Last October the city of Belleville installed high-intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined within a month. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district, but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. We should install high-intensity lighting throughout Amburg, then, because doing so is a more effective way to combat crime. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
29分26秒 617字
In the president’s recommendation, he argue that the city of Amburg(city A) should take the same step as the city of Belleville (city B)did, installing high-intensity lighting troughout the Amburg, in order to decrease the probability of crime happen in the A city. He base his argument on the evidence that the criminal ratein city B declined within a month after the city B install high-intensity lighting in its central business district, meanwhile, even the city A had already begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district, the rate of vandalism still remain constant.
At first glance, the president’s suggestion might seem plausible, but there are some specific evidence should be discussed before judging the correctness of his argument. In fact, if either of the evidence discussing given below true, the president’s recommendation’s correctness would irresible been undermined.
To begin with, we should discuss the vandalism rate in city B. to make sure that the president’s suggestion is reasonable or tenable. We should first find evidence that will prove that the declining criminal rate in city B is directly related to the installed high-intensity lighting in the central business districts. Otherwise, if we can not find the evidence to prove this relationship, we can not jump to the conclusion that taking the same step in city A will be helpful.
There is obviously possibility that the declining vandalism rate in city B is entirely, or at least, indirectly related to the high- intensity lighting install these month. Maybe it is just a coincident. And, critically, there are reasonable cause to result in this situation, for instance, the city B also begun police patrol these months, witch the president might intentially ignored in his argument, and this is very efficiency, as a result ,the criminal rate in the specific area declined. If this situation true, it seems that there is nothing to do with the installed high-intensity lighting.
What is worse, though the whole vandalism rate in city B declined, it is likely to suggest that the rate in its central business districts did not decline, but raise. Maybe the lighting installed there may people feel it is safe, however, it actually raise the possibility for them to get hurt by the crime.
Even though the president can show us the powerful evidence to prove that the installed high-intensity lighting really make great contribution to decrease the vandalism rate in city B, he still fail to offer us the evidence to prove that taking the same step in city A will also help.
In the case, he fisrt fail to convince us that the police patrol in business area is ineffective. Though the vandalism rate in city A remained constant, it is possible to assume that the rate in its business area really declined, owing to the police patrol. If this is true, maybe the best way for city A to do is to enlarge the area of police patrol, which might be effective and economy.
What is more, the president also fail to convince us that installing the high-intensity lighting through the city A will do any help to prevent the vandalism rate. Because maybe the lighting through the city is already luminary enough to keep crime to hurt the citizen. And taking the action the president suggest will just be a waste.
In a word, the president should offer enough evidence to prove the action taken in city B is effective and it is also useful to be taken in city A, otherwise, it is possible that the suggestion will only cause a waste for the city, instead of declining to vandalism rate in the city, let alone revitalize the declining neighborhoods in city A.
好吧，我最后还是3.5，纪念一下当时的帖子 你考试时候也是这样写一堆短段落？ 写了四五段的，没这么碎
好贴，绝对要支持下！！~~ 32855 发表于 2012-10-20 17:29 static/image/common/back.gif
好贴，绝对要支持下！！~~
谢谢啊！！
页:
[1]