[习作点评] 这是第一次写argument，求批改 [复制链接]

bert2177
UID：3468997

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 61
寄托币: 353
注册时间: 2013-9-3
精华: 0
帖子: 29

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2013-10-18 21:04:23 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

不知道是第几题就直接把题目也贴上来了。感谢各位有空来评改一下~~
The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner.
Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

While it may be true that the decreasing of shoppers in Central Plaza and the rise of skateboarding happened at the same time, the author's argument doesn't make a persuasive reason of the connection between two incidents. It's clear that the argument state its will of returning the business in Central Plaza, however, the holes and assumptions appeared in the letter make it too weak to lead to the result.

From the letter, it's undeniable that the decline of shoppers appeared with the dramatic increasing of skateboarding. Although the author mentioned that store owners believed two incidents were related, other supportive reasoning were ignored. It's possible that the decreasing business may be caused something else. For instance, dropping of financial situation throughout the city may also become the answer to decreasing shoppers. Within a financial crisis, people would control their expense. Hence, fewer people would choose to shop at the Central Plaza. In addition, the abatement may result from a recently opened department store, where people feel better than in the Central Plaza. Furthermore, the author used "steadily" to describe the decreasing of the shoppers, while "dramatically" to state the increasing of skaters. It seems that the cause of losing customers is driven by something else rather than the swift growth of skateboard players. Clearly, there are other reasons that can cause the reducing customers in Central Plaza, however, the author failed to eliminate the possibilities Unless all aspects are considered, it's unwise to state that increasing skateboarding are related to decreasing of shoppers in Central Plaza.

What's more, the letter addressed that the increasing of litter and vandalism is related to skateboarding, even though the author failed to present specific reasons. Before coming to the conclusion, few questions have to be answered. Did the increasing of litter and vandalism happen after the appearance of more skateboarding? Or have the litter and vandalism always been the same, but people didn't notice before skateboarding increased? Did the skaters cause litter and vandalism? If didn't, who was or were to blame? Was it because the absence of securities? Why litter would increase with fewer people shopping in Central Plaza? In order to become cogent, the author need to answer these questions, thus, it will makes the argument more persuasive.

The issues discussed above were about explanations to the decreasing of shoppers in Central Plaza. Even though assuming that the increasing of skateboarding is the cause of more litter and vandalism and in the end the declining of customers of Central Plaza, there is no reason provided to show prohibiting skateboarding in Central Plaza would save the business of the owners there. The conclusion was presented with several assumptions.

The first assumption is built on validity of measures operated by the government. Even if the government agrees to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza, there's no grantee that the number of skaters would be reduced. What a government does to prevent skaters in Central Plaza could vary from simply tell people not to do so and do nothing afterwards to send securities to guard the place. So could the results. Unless more details are listed, the efficiency of the government's movement is questionable.

Second, the author assumed that once the number of skateboarding is decreased, the business of the Central Plaza would return to its previously high levels. In some situations, once people lose something, it can never return to its original status, such as forest fires. Even firefighters are able to put out the fire, but what was burnt is gone forever. Thus, it's possible that although the increasing number of skateboarding accounted for the Central Plaza losing its shopper, the lost customers wouldn't return to the Central Plaza even skaters are gone.

If the author of the letter could make the assumptions into determinate answers, the argument would become more powerful and convincing.

Examining all the various aspects and factors involved in the letter, the argument cannot come to the conclusion to prohibit skateboarding in the Central Plaza in order to revive the lost business. Although the argument does provide a possibility, more information is required to warrant any action.