问一个argument题

lizlee0420UID: 3163467

31题，看着题目怪怪的，想不通，请好心的同学帮忙解答下吧
In our region of Trillura,the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend——the city-run public schools——comes from taxes that each city government collects.The region's cities differ,however,in the bugetary priority(这个bugdetary priority就不太理解是什么意思，太抽象了)they give to public education.For example,both as a proportion of its overall tax revenues and in absolute terms(in absolute terms是从绝对意义上说，但是前边那个both as a proportion of its overall tax revenues不明白是啥意思)，Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its poblic schools——even though both cities have about the same number of residents.Clearly,Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good educaion in public schools than Blue City residents do
主要错误是P和B不恰当的类比，还有P花的钱比B少不能说明P对教育的投入不如P，能明白这个。但是这个材料看得我有点抽象，是不是还和美国的一些背景有关系？

aixi1991UID: 3235875

7# 咖啡盐    看了你的分析，我的那个观点好像确实不便展开来说。列提纲的时候光想着攻击点了，没有想着如何展开比较好~谢谢版主~:)

咖啡盐UID: 2973669

Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its poblic schools——even though both cities have about the same number of residents 我也理解的是residents和students概念偷换了：尽管两个城市的学生人数一样，但是每年P比B对公立学校多花费近两倍的钱，这样在“财政投入/per student”上P就是B的两倍，在此基础上，作者推出P比B居民更重视公共教育。这样能说得通么？

我的答案是说不通。先不论你的这个概念偷换是否恰当，这个要看你的论证时怎么样的，或许你能够自圆其说，没有看到文章，我也不能妄下定论，但至少就我个人而言，residents和students的概念偷换是不可取的。再来看我划红线的部分，你的逻辑在这里出现了问题，财政对于学生的投入和当地居民之间的关系，你是如何得出的？因为他们纳税，所以有关？不知道两者间的逻辑关系你是怎么看待的。居民向政府缴纳税收。这就结束了，至于税收上来怎么用，那是政府的问题，与居民无关了。设身处地想想，我们纳了税，是我们能支配的吗？显然不是，财政资金的支配者是政府，与居民无关。所以，不能得出居民重视教育。

aixi1991UID: 3235875

5# 咖啡盐
Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its poblic schools——even though both cities have about the same number of residents 我也理解的是residents和students概念偷换了：尽管两个城市的学生人数一样，但是每年P比B对公立学校多花费近两倍的钱，这样在“财政投入/per student”上P就是B的两倍，在此基础上，作者推出P比B居民更重视公共教育。这样能说得通么？

咖啡盐UID: 2973669

2# 咖啡盐
你的意思是作者提到的even though both cities have about the same number of residents是作者由税收相当推出的错误结论吗？我看的时候理解为一个evidence，是推定为正确的哎~
我认为的偷换概念在于r ...
mengyz31 发表于 2012-3-24 15:46

无法理解你的逻辑。题目讨论的是当地税收与公共教育支持度的问题，和学生数量有神马关系？题目中的example假定的是税收水平相当，但是对于相同居民人数的P城对于公共教育的支持度比B城高，得出P城居民比B城居民更重视教育。税收和居民人数并没有直接关系，这是作者的臆断。

mengyz31UID: 2854546

2# 咖啡盐
你的意思是作者提到的even though both cities have about the same number of residents是作者由税收相当推出的错误结论吗？我看的时候理解为一个evidence，是推定为正确的哎~
我认为的偷换概念在于residents和学生数量之间

lizlee0420UID: 3163467

2# 咖啡盐
谢谢斑竹~~

咖啡盐UID: 2973669

1# lizlee0420

In our region of Trillura,the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend——the city-run public schools——（插入语分析时可以不看不看）comes from taxes that each city government collects.The region's cities differ,however,in the budgetary priority（财政预算的优先度） they give to public education（这句话就是说某地区各城市在对公共教育的预算优先权上是不同的）.For example,both as a proportion of its overall tax revenues
and in absolute terms（此处就是一个假设。在and之前题目给出一个假定就是两个城市的税收相当。但是他怕这话破绽太大，所以在后面追加一个in absolute terms，给定一个理想类型而已。这句话信息价值不大。另外，从句式上看，划线句整句话处于两个逗号之间，是典型的插入语形式，那么在句子中属于酱油党，可以不做考虑基本无有用信息，不需要深究。），Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its poblic schools——even though both cities have about the same number of residents.（这里就是非常明显的偷换概念。税收相当，变成了有相同数量的居民。）Clearly,Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good educaion in public schools than Blue City residents do.

好啦，就说这么多，说太多了，不利于你思考，希望以上对你对于本题目的认识会有帮助。多用心去理解，相信困难都会迎刃而解的。