[a习作temp] argument61 wanwp 第九次作业 [复制链接]

wanwp
UID??2369605

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 228
注册时间: 2007-7-26
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-8 10:08:01 |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: 420 TIME: 00:36:00 DATE: 2007-8-7 16:39:00

In this report by the School District of Eyleria, the author comes to a conclusion that we need not to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years. To support his conclusion, he cites the statistics that the ratio of computers to students in Eyleria is larger than the average ratio in nation. However, a close examination of this report reveals that it contains several critical flaws as follows.

The threshold is that this report relies on an unwarranted assumption that the correlation between the national average ratio of computers to students and the daily use of computers necessarily leads to the causal relationship between them. However it is often not the case. Though a good ratio of computers to students can ensure that there are enough computers for students, we can not get the conclusion that all students can use computers daily in their classroom. Perhaps in some parts of the nation, the ratio is low. Perhaps students can only use the computers once every week because of the large amount of students. Or perhaps students can only use computers in some special rooms rather than their classrooms. Without considering all these possibilities, the report can not render me convincing.

Secondly, the report commits a fallacy of hasty generalization that all of Eyleria's students will be fully proficient in use of computer technology because of the sufficiency of computers. In fact it is not necessarily the case. Every student has his own interest. Even if the computer is sufficient for them, not all the students would like to devote all his time to learning it. Then we can get the conclusion that all the students can master the computer well. The hasty generalization will undermine the credibility of the report.

Finally, even if we accept the conclusion above, there is no evidence to support that we need not spend any of the school' budge on computers or other technology. Perhaps we can spend money in some new technology just like new communication system. Or perhaps we can spend money in renewing the computers out of date. The arguer fails to rule out these possibilities and can not lend strong support to the conclusion.

In summary, the report is not well-supported. To substantiate the report, the author should provide the clear survey to show the actual situation of computers and the situation about mastering the computers. To better assess the report, I also need to know the situation of computers at present.