[a习作temp] ARGUMENT61 风之声第九次作业 [复制链接]

f_l_w
UID：2112831

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 270
注册时间: 2005-7-1
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-8 14:17:01 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT61 - The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria.

"Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years."
WORDS: 439 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2007-8-8 下午 01:36:33

In this argument, the author recommends that there is no reason to spend any of the school's budgets on computers or other technology in the next few years. Close scrutiny of the evidences cited by author; however, reveal none of them to support the author's recommendation.
The threshold problem in this argument is that the author assume they have enough computers in their school, but this groundless. Firstly, whether the educators’ claims that average ration is a good ration is unwarranted. The author does not tell any information about the claims. Who is the educator? Whether he is a experts who have done enough experiment to support his conclusion? Have he consider the different computers condition would impact the use? What if the computers are outdated ones? Have they provided enough teachers to train these students? When these students could use the computers? If he have not considered these factors, it is possible that some area though has reached the ratio, but their computers are all old ones that students could not use. Or it is possible that there is not one know how to use these computers in that school. Then, the educator's claims are unreasonable.

Second, there is no reason that we could say the ratio is sufficient to ensure that all of our students would be fully proficient in the use of computer technology by the time they graduate form high school without consider our other factors in our school, not to mention that we have not reach the national average. If we do not spend budget on the computers or other technology, our computer wood be out-dated and our students only could learn the old technology that would not be useful for them when they graduate, because the computers technology advance too fast and we could not make sure the students learn through our facilities could keep pace with the market demand for talents. Also, given that if the teacher is unqualified to teach our students, we still need the budget to cultivate our teacher.
what is more, if we assume the educator is somewhat reasonable, that the ratio in our Scholl is in grade K-12 is still unpersuasive. What about our total ratio from low grade to high grade? It is possible that it is great lower than the average ratio 1:5.
In sum up, the argument is logically flawed and unpersuasive. To make it acceptable, the authors must provide adequate evidence about the whole computer conditions in all grades. In addition, I need more information concerning the teacher skill in our school to better evaluate the author's suggestion.