.我们经常会说一个人的论证很“单薄”,就是因为他省略了很多应该要说的东西,你这段其实也是一样的,从整个段落的表达来看,你要批的实际上是“新的JAZZ CLUB不一定会有这么多客人”,基于这个主题,我帮你完善一个分论点你学习一下这种论述方式好了:比如在 “The nearest jazz club is 65 miles faraway, doesn' t mean there is no other kind of club which also plays jazz music even if it is not a special jazz club.”这句话后面加上“The jazz fans might be accustomed to play in the clubs which do not prohibit jazz music. And even if the new special jazz club is built up, they might be unwilling to switch places for they do not want to change their old customs. Therefore, whether the new jazz music club can attract all jazz fans does not merely depend on its location”,接下来在论述你的other factors,这个部分就需要你自己去补充了。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=927873&highlight=
事实上,任何一个论述,都是有一套完整的前提A,推论B和背景C的,正是这三个东西加上一些推理性的词语,构成了整个逻辑的链接,一般来讲就是:A à B(基于C的背景下),无论ABC哪一个出了问题,都无法支持这个推理,现在我们所面临的最大问题就是:思维僵化,只会从A当中找突破口。其实如果是从B或C为基点出发,找到一些与A有关的可能性,同样能够推翻作者的推理。