[习作点评] Argument 227 求批改 [复制链接]

cpsencyclopedia
UID：3608312

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 50
寄托币: 187
注册时间: 2015-4-4
精华: 0
帖子: 34

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2015-5-3 13:54:40 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

难易程度：★★★

　　题目题材：城市，社会

　　gre argument 227题目：

　　The following appeared as an editorial in a local newspaper.

　　"In order to attract visitors to Central Plaza downtown and to return the plaza to its former glory(5), the city should prohibit skateboarding there and instead allow skateboarders to use an area in Monroe Park(2). At Central Plaza, skateboard users are about the only people one sees now, and litter and defaced property have made the plaza unattractive(1). In a recent survey of downtown merchants(3), the majority supported a prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza. Clearly, banning skateboarding in Central Plaza will make the area a place where people can congregate for fun or for relaxation(4,6)."

我的习作：

A journalist argued in an editorial that the city should ban skateboarding at Central Plaza for several reasons. I believe his/her argument has been based on several false assumptions of cause and effect relationships.

First of all, the fact that skateboard users are about the only people one sees now at Central Plaza cannot prove that litter and defaced property are caused by them. It could be weather conditions such as wind, rain, snow, storms etc. that mess the area. It could also be things that grow and fall from plants around the Plaza such as leaves, flowers and catkin, and even worms that grow on trees and fall can make the Plaza dirty. It could be pedestrians or drivers who litter or scribble everywhere, who pass by at times when they are hard to see, for example at night or in the early morning. It could also be residents or workers from the property around the Plaza. Another possibility is that if there was a kindergarten near the area, the children from it would be highly likely to litter, spit and scribble around the area due to their age.

Second, the unattractiveness of the Plaza may not be the only reason for the inadequate number of visitors there. The economy could be sluggish, which affects tourism. The whole city could be less than popular tourism destination for any reason. It could be safety considerations, for example an epidemic that just broke out, or that is about to spread around the area, or a major terrorist attack that happened recently or is rumored to happen, or extreme weathers or disasters that happened recently such as tsunami, hurricane, earthquake, etc. It could be reduced advertising expenses for the tourism of the city/state/country, leading to a decreased number of tourists to the area.

Third, there are other false assumptions about cause and effect relationships. For example, does the government have to follow the opinion of a survey? Because it has too many factors to consider. And even if it should follow the opinion of a survey, it was a survey of downtown mechants only. It is biased because it does not include opinions from government officials, city residents, tourists and skateboarders. Also, the argument does not explain why banning skateboarding in the Plaza would attract people for fun or relaxation. It is a paradox itself because skateboarders themselves are people looking for fun and relaxation. And it may also be a false assumption that if the Plaza can attract people looking for fun or relation, tourists will come, too. Fun-seeking people are not necessarily tourists. They can be local residents, local performers, etc.

Other problems with the argument include vague language about "former glory" and concealing other relevant information. What was the tourism situation like before exactly? How long has been the area low on tourism? Has it been a week? A month? A year? Or a decade? What were the reasons for the tourism prosperity back then and what reasons for the decline? Answers to all of those questions pertain to the solution of the problem.

Therefore, the argument is groundless and thus the proposal is invalid.

欢迎大家拍砖~