[a习作temp] 还有几天就考了，希望有好心人能指点一下 [复制链接]

念念
UID: 2460791

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 113
注册时间: 2008-2-19
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-2-24 19:41:33 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT239 - The following appeared as an editorial in the local newspaper of Dalton.
"When the neighboring town of Williamsville adopted a curfew four months ago that made it illegal for persons under the age of 18 to loiter or idle in public places after 10 p.m., youth crime in Williamsville dropped by 27 percent during curfew hours. In Williamsville's town square, the area where its citizens were once most outraged at the high crime rate, not a single crime has been reported since the curfew was introduced. Therefore, to help reduce its own rising crime rate, the town of Dalton should adopt the same kind of curfew. A curfew that keeps young people at home late at night will surely control juvenile delinquency and protect minors from becoming victims of crime."

The notion above say that the local youth crime will drop if D adopt the curfew since W had adopted the same curfew and the outcome is good. But the arguer’s statement is not well reasoned to prove the adopting of the curfew is a good choice.

Firstly, the arguer provides a data that W adopted the curfew and then the youth crime dropped 27% during curfew. However, the data is not persuasive because though the youth crime has dropped in curfew hours, no information about whether the youth crime has increased or decreased, Maybe most of the youth who incline to break the law loiter or idle in public earlier after the curfew was introduced. So the crimination may less happened after 10 p.m. while more happened before the time, and the curfew can not achieve the goal of control juvenile.

Second, the arguer believes the curfew is efficient also because of no single crime has been reported in W's town in which its citizens were once can not bear the high crime. But no crime be reported does not means no crimination. The arguer does not provide any data about how many crimes has really happened in the place. Besides, even if the crime was less happened in the town, it is not reason that since crimination may happen at other places.

Moreover, it is presumptuous to judge that D can also adopted the same curfew according to W's relative data that are tend to prove that the curfew is succeed. No statement has been said about whether the majority law breakers in D's are youth or adults. If most those people are upper 18 years old, the curfew will not do a lot in protect the minors. It is also impossible that nearly all the youth crimes are happened in D before 10p.m. even though D has not use the curfew, so take the curfew may not be useful to reduce the youth crimination.

In sum, the arguer does not give persuasive reasons to stand for his or her advice to be a good way to control juvenile delinquency and protect minors from becoming victims of crime. If the arguer provide more information about the reasons of adopting the same curfew of W's, the advice might be more intrude.