[a习作temp] argument205 还是那句话，保5争6 [复制链接]

hongjuer
UID：2299965

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 528
注册时间: 2007-2-3
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-4-8 13:56:02 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

(六月小组第零次作业, Issue我没有贴，我把题号弄错了，Issue要重写。)

ARGUMENT 205

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 district and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime, we should install such lighting throughout Amburg. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city. ”

time: 50mins, words: 577

In this recommendation, the arguer suggested that by installing intensity lighting throughout Armburg can reduce crime and then revitalize the declining the neighborhoods in that city.  This suggestion, sounds plausible at first glance, is highly doubtable after a careful scrutiny.

The threshold problem is that the arguer built a wrong causal relationship between the high intensity lighting and the reducing of crime. In order to support this relationship, the arguer represented a piece of evidence that in the city of Belleville vandalism declined almost immediately after installing such lighting in its central district.  However, a close examination finds that the evidence can not support this conclusion. There is no evidence to show that the reducing of vandalism is the result of installing such lighting.  Actually, there are many possible factors can explain the declination of the occurrence of vandalism in that city.  For example, the police station of the city of Belleville has strengthened the patrolling force recently; the city of Belleville has just installed a more advanced supervising and alarm system to protect public facilities and artworks; it also can be a consequence of a long term of education of public responsibilities to the public.  These strategies are all effective to prevent vandalism. The arguer proposed the evidence but did not analyze the real reasons behind this phenomenon.

In addition, the arguer amounted mistakenly vandalism to crime. Since vandalism is just a small branch of crime, the effective methods to intervene the happening of different crimes can be completely different. Bank robbery, for example, its occurrence has nothing to do with such lighting in the city.  Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer can not assert that it is a most effective way to combat crime by installing intensity lighting, even which did decrease the quantity of vandalism. Blindly attributing the reducing crime to a surface factor, the arguer deduced a hasty conclusion without cautious considerations.

Furthermore, it is highly problematic that the arguer extrapolated the situation of the city of Belleville to the city of Armburg.  In arguer’s recommendation, we can not find any description about these two cities.  Many questions thus arise: Do the two cities have the same geographical characteristics and similar road systems?  Do people there have the similar cultural backgrounds and qualities?  Do the police stations there have the same size of police force?  Do the governments there have similar public educational system? Etc. Unaccompanied with these details, the analogy between the two cities is unable to convince us.

Even the analogy of the two cities and the explanations of the arguer could be accepted temporarily by me, it is a still weak link that the auger posited between deducing crime and revitalizing the neighborhoods.  It is well known that a good neighborhood must involve the efforts of the neighbors and the community, who are not only taking part in the activities of recover the relationships between the neighbors but also supply the physical facilities and psychological support to reconstruct these relationships. A community library, for example, is an effective trial to help reconstructing a healthy social relationship between neighbors.  However, the arguer ignored the intrinsic cultural and social perspectives, focused a questionable influence of installing such lighting that has not been reasonably proved by him, and asserted arbitrarily that it will direct automatically to a revitalizing neighborhoods.

In sum, I suggest that the arguer reached a false conclusion based on the evidence he presented.

[ 本帖最后由 hongjuer 于 2007-4-8 14:03 编辑 ]

回应
0

[a习作temp] argument205 还是那句话，保5争6 [复制链接]

回复 #6 hongjuer 的帖子

回复 #13 whatcanelkydo 的帖子

Pisces双鱼座

荣誉版主

US Assistant

US Applicant

QQ联合登录