phoenix小组組員九號 2011/2/11argument61

ivycxhUID: 2684552

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."


In this argument, the author claims that it is not necessarily for schools to spend any budget on the computers or the technology. To justify the conclusion, the author indicates that the average ratio of computers to students is 1:5 and the ratio 1:7 in Eyleria can ensure all of its students are fully proficient in the computer technology when graduating. However, with serious-minded scrutiny of the seemingly convincing reasoning, the argument itself reveals several critical fallacies as discussed below.

First and foremost, the ratio 1:5 in national school does not necessarily mean that the students in school have the sufficient opportunity to contact with the computers. All might have to consider that the ratio 1:5 is not equal to that there is one computer among five students. In other word, some students might come into little contact with the technology which disprove the speaker's point that it is very good ratio. Without more detailed information, the conclusion is in lack of solid ground.

Furthermore, it is unconvincing that merely based on the ratio 1:7 in Eyleria, the speaker draw the conclusion that all of its students will become good at the computer technology. Obviously, the ratio in Eyleria is less than the national ratio which means the Eyleria's students have less association with the computer. Besides, it is not necessary that every student graduating from Eyleria might master a perfect computer skill. Without ruling out other possibilities, it is entirely possible that the school is short of computer teachers or arranges insufficient computer lessons which leads to the opposite result. Therefore, the result the speaker points out has little to do with the facts.

Finally, even if the computers are enough to help students get better skills, it is improper to assert that spend little budget on computers or other technology in the next few years. The author might collectively ignore that technology on computer today develops so fast that without updating the computers, the old ones might do little help to the students, which does also not support the conclusion.

To sum up, on the basis of such evidence and reasoning, the conclusion is entirely short of convincingness. To make the conclusion a bit more convictive, the author would have to provide more information such as the number of the computer teachers, their capacity on the technology and the local development of the computer technology today and so forth.

错失湛蓝UID: 2585937

文章语言很丰富，语法有些小错误，我觉得还不错。
graduating-graduated
fallacies ??
All might have to be considered is that the ratio 1:5 is not equal to that there is one computer among five students. In other words, some students might come into little contact with ??the technology

become good at the computer technology[/color我不太确定是否有这种用法，就是关于 good at 的用法，我只了解 be good at dong sth,的用法，呵呵
have less association with the computer. ？？
that the school is short of computer teachers or arranges insufficient computer lessons which leads ??
如有不对，请指教。