Argument214 [Chasing For "6" Score]小组第一次作业

byking1985UID: 2222368

题目：214In each city in the region of Treehaven, the majority of the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the value they place on public education. For example, Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. It seems clear, therefore, that Parson City residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents.
字数：570              时间：2007－1－30
提纲：1.政府预算多最多说明政府重视教育，但不能说是residents重视
         2.PC的预算是BC的两倍不能说明PC比BC更重视教育，可能是其他原因

正文：
In this argument, the arguer clearly concludes that Parson City residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public school-even though both cities have about the same number of residents. Meanwhile, the arguer cites that in each city in the region of Treehaven, the majority of the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects. A careful examination of his argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

At the very beginning, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. As mentioned in the argument, the money spent on government-run public schools comes from taxes that government collects. It's also a general knowledge that the taxes are imposed from the residents of each city. Based on this fact, the arguer asserts that Parson City residents care more about public school than Blue City's do, since; the PC budgets for public schools per year are twice of the later one's. The author obviously overlooks that the status of the government and the residents are not equal. The mere fact that PC's budget for public school is more than BC's only can represent the active value the PC government places on public education. However, that can not tell the residents in PC harboring the same positive attitude towards public school education; only because rate paying is residents' incumbency and they are negative. In short, government' attitude can't substitute the taxpayers’. That is to say, maybe PC' residents care less than BC' on the issue of the public school education.

In the second place, the argument depends on the assumption that PC budgets twice as much money per year as BC does for its public school-even though both cities have about the same number of residents. However, we are not informed whether this is the case. Because we don't aware the base amount of money each city budgets every year. It is possible that although PC budgets two times the money more than BC does, the total amount of budget is also the twice of BC's. That is to say, the percentage of money spent on local public school in both cities is equivalent. In addition, the fact that both cities have about the same number of residents does not prove that the two cities have the same number of public schools and students attended public school. It may, in fact, be that PC is a metropolitan and the number of public schools and students is remarkable larger, three or even more times, than BC-a small city. If true, the average money each public school in PC obtained will far less than public schools in BC. Without ruling out all the scenarios, the author cannot convince me that the PC residents pay more attention on public school education.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the percentage of the money launched into local public schools in total government budget and the average money each school gets. To better evaluate the argument, the arguer would need to distinguish the maybe different wishes of government and residents.

[ 本帖最后由 byking1985 于 2007-2-3 19:30 编辑 ]

blue_zsqUID: 2293265

Argument214[Chasing For "6" Score]小组第一次作业

题目：214In each city in the region of Treehaven, the majority of the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the value they place on public education. For example, Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. It seems clear, therefore, that Parson City residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents.
字数：570              时间：2007－1－30
提纲：1.政府预算多最多说明政府重视教育，但不能说是residents重视
         2.PC的预算是BC的两倍不能说明PC比BC更重视教育，可能是其他原因

正文：
In this argument, the arguer clearly concludes that Parson City residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public school-even though both cities have about the same number of residents. Meanwhile, the arguer cites that in each city in the region of Treehaven, the majority of the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects. A careful examination of his argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

At the very beginning, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. As mentioned in the argument, the money spent on government-run public schools comes from taxes that government collects. It's also a general knowledge that the taxes are imposed from the residents of each city. Based on this fact, the arguer asserts that Parson City residents care more about public school than Blue City's do, since; the PC budgets for public schools per year are twice of the later one's. The author obviously overlooks that the status of the government and the residents are not equal. The mere fact that PC's budget for public school is more than BC's only can represent the active value the PC government places on public education. However, that can not tell the residents in PC harboring the same positive attitude towards public school education; only because rate paying is residents' incumbency and they are negative. In short, government' attitude can't substitute the taxpayers’. That is to say, maybe PC' residents care less than BC' on the issue of the public school education.

In the second place, the argument depends on the assumption that PC budgets twice as much money per year as BC does for its public school-even though both cities have about the same number of residents. However, we are not informed whether this is the case. Because we don't aware (are not aware of)the base amount of money each city budgets every year. It is possible that although PC budgets two times the money more than BC does, the total amount of budget is also the twice of BC's. That is to say, the percentage of money spent on local public school in both cities is equivalent. In addition, the fact that both cities have about the same number of residents does not prove that the two cities have the same number of public schools and students attended public schools. It (may)might, in fact, be that PC is a metropolitan(metropolis) and the number of public schools and students is remarkable larger, three or even more times, than BC-a small city. If true, the average money each public school in PC obtained will far less than public schools in BC. Without ruling out all the scenarios, the author cannot convince me(us) that the PC residents pay more attention on public school education.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks of credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the percentage of the money launched into local public schools in total government budget and the average money each school gets shares. To better evaluate the argument, the arguer would need to distinguish the maybe different wishes of government and residents.