Argument239球拍！谢谢~~

zhang111UID: 2770566

The argument presented above is not completely well-reasoned. The arguer recommends that the town of Dalton should adopt a same kind of curfew as the neighboting town of Williamsville did to help reduce the rising crime rate. To support the conclude the arguer provides the edvidence that since W adopted the curfew youth crime in W dropped by 27percent during curfew hours,and not a single crime has been reported in W's town square, which was once at the high crime rate. Moreover, the arguer reasons that the curfew will surely control juvenile delinquency and protect minors from becoming victims of crime. The conclusion sounds reasonable at the first thought, however, it is unconvincing in several aspects.

In the first place, the evidence provided in this argument is not sufficient to validate the assumption that the youth crime rate in W has been reduced. The fact that youth crime in W dropped by 27 percent during curfew hours says little about the assumption. Because the arguer fails to provide any information concerning the youth crime happened in other hours. Maybe during other time it has been significantly rised. And the fact that not a single crime has been reported in W's town square does not ensure that no crime has happened there. It is also open to doubt that wether more crimes happened in other places. After all, a square is not equal to the whole town.

Secondly, the arguer fails to convince us that it is necessary for D to adopt the curfew. Since no evidence has been provided that youth crime should be responsible for the rising crime rate of D. If the rising crime rate is mostly the result of adult crime, the curfew for persons under the age of 18 is completely invalid to reduce the rate. Also, the arguer's conclusion depends on a questionable assumption that D and W have the same condition. But clearly they may have many difference. As the public secutity in W is inferior, but it is much better in D, and the curfew is not as necessary in D as in W, or that maybe D is just a town which suit for the people who retired, and not many youth there at all.   

In conclusion, the argument is not well-reasoned. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must provide more facts to prove that after adopting the curfew youth crime has been reduced in W indeed, and more evidence about the rising crime rate in D is mainly caused by youth crime, and D and W have the similar condition.

zhang111UID: 2770566

好的，一定注意，谢谢提醒~~