[a习作temp] Argument16 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！有拍必回！ [复制链接]

wxfhill
UID??180140

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 451
注册时间: 2004-9-25
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-7-25 15:12:26 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument16  让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户 ------题目------
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a citizen of the state of Impecunia.
'Two years ago our neighboring state, Lucria, began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health. Today, Lucria spends more per pupil than we do, and Lucria's public health program treats far more people than our state's program does. If we were to establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, the profits could be used to improve our educational system and public health program. The new lottery would doubtless be successful, because a survey conducted in our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling.'
------正文------
The author concludes that by establishing a new lottery Impecunia can raise its tax revenues and therefore improve the education and public heath. To strengthen this conclusion, the author cites the fact that Lucria, a state near Impecunia, spends more per pupil than we do and Lucia's public health program treats far more people than Impecunia's program does.  The author also assumes that the new lottery would be profitable based on the survey which shows that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling. However, this argument is logically flawed in several respects.

In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that the superiority of Lucia's education and public health to Impecunia's is attributable to the lottery. Yet no clear evidence is offered to substantiate this assumption. Perhaps Lucria has always been superior to Impecunia in education and public health; or perhaps Lucria places more emphasis on education and public health and has more funds to support these programs; or perhaps Lucria has a larger population than that of Impecunia and that is why Lucria's public health program treats more people than Impecunia's program dose.
Without ruling out these and other possibilities, the author cannot convince me that the lottery is responsible for the superiority of Lucria's education and public health - let alone lottery can improve the education and public health in Impecunia.

In the second place, even if the lottery is to some degree responsible for the improvement of Lucria's education and public health, the author unfairly assumes that the lottery would also serve to improve the education and public health in Impecunia. Aside from the near location of the two states, the author has not provided any other evidence to prove that these two states share the similar situation in improving education and public health. It is entirely possible that the situations in the two states are significantly different.  Perhaps the average income of people in Lucria is far more than that of people in Impecunia. Or perhaps the population of Lucria is larger than that of Impecunia. Without taking into account and ruling out these scenarios, the author cannot justifiably expect us take seriously the claim that a new lottery would help Impecunia to improve its education and public health.

Finally, the author draws the conclusion that the new lottery would be profitable in Impecunia based on a survey conducted in the capital city of Impecunia. However, the author provides no evidence that this survey is statistically reliable. It is entirely possible that the respondents are not representative of the overall population of people in Impecunia. Common sense tells us that the income of people in the capital  city is often more than  that of smaller and cities and towns. If this is the case, the author cannot draw any firm conclusion based on this survey.

To sum up, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide clear evidence that the improvement of education and public health is due to the lottery. The author also must provide evidence that the survey is statistically reliable. To better assess this argument, I would need to know other situations of the two states.

回应
0

使用道具举报

vprzhs
UID??144409

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 719
注册时间: 2003-9-6
精华: 0
帖子: 2

沙发

发表于 2005-7-26 13:27:13 |只看该作者

The author concludes that by establishing a new lottery Impecunia can raise its tax revenues and therefore improve the education and public heath. To strengthen this conclusion, the author cites the fact that Lucria, a state near Impecunia, spends more per pupil than we do and Lucia's public health program treats far more people than Impecunia's program does. The author also assumes that the new lottery would be profitable based on the survey which shows that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling. However, this argument is logically flawed in several respects.

In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that the superiority of Lucia's education and public health to Impecunia's is attributable to the lottery. Yet no clear evidence is offered to substantiate this assumption. Perhaps Lucria has always been superior to Impecunia in education and public health; or perhaps Lucria places more emphasis on education and public health and has more funds to support these programs; or perhaps Lucria has a larger population than that of Impecunia and that is why Lucria's public health program treats more people than Impecunia's program dose.
Without ruling out these and other possibilities, the author cannot convince me that the lottery is responsible for the superiority of Lucria's education and public health - let alone lottery can improve the education and public health in Impecunia.

In the second place, even if the lottery is to some degree responsible for the improvement of Lucria's education and public health, the author unfairly assumes that the lottery would also serve to improve the education and public health in Impecunia. Aside from the near location of the two states, the author has not provided any other evidence to prove that these two states share the similar situation in improving education and public health. It is entirely possible that the situations in the two states are significantly different. ( Perhaps) the average income of people in Lucria is far more than that of people in Impecunia. (Or perhaps)(逻辑把握不错，可是措辞单一，or perhaps使用过多，上一段已有，可以转换表达方式) the population of Lucria is larger than that of Impecunia. Without taking into account and ruling out these scenarios, the author cannot justifiably expect us take seriously the claim that a new lottery would help Impecunia to improve its education and public health.

Finally, (the author draws the conclusion that the new lottery would be profitable in Impecunia based on a survey conducted in the capital city of Impecunia. However, the author provides no evidence that this survey is statistically reliable)(两句合并为一句，直截了当说出Ts，不转折的好，阅卷人看你的文章不超过1分钟吧？). It is entirely possible that the respondents are not representative of the overall population of people in Impecunia. Common sense tells us that the income of people in the capital city is often more than that of smaller and cities and towns. If this is the case, the author cannot draw any firm conclusion based on this survey.

To sum up, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide clear evidence that the improvement of education and public health is due to the lottery. The author also must provide evidence that the survey is statistically reliable. To better assess this argument, I would need to know other situations of the two states.
(稍微注意措辞多样性，文章很不错了
有时间也指点一下小弟，在下感激不尽。)

[ Last edited by vprzhs on 2005-7-26 at 13:29 ]

05.10.22 。。。。
～～广外～～

使用道具举报