欢迎拍文修改小组7.17作业 argument11

迷失的鱼UID: 2850922

TOPIC: ARGUMENT11 - The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg.

"Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore, over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents' strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
WORDS: 462
TIME: 00:31:48
DATE: 2010/7/17 19:07:40

In the memo, the author claims that landfill will last longer than predicted. To support his claim, the author offer the information that: 1) more recycling of aluminum and paper is made in the previous two years; 2) charges of garbage pickup will double and result in increasing material recycle; 3) 90 percent citizens questioned claimed more recycling in the future. Supportive at first glance, closer scrutiny show how little do these evidences bolster his claim.

First of all, the predicted year for landfill is questionable. However, no information is offered to show the difference between the predicted situation and the real one. It is possible that all the happenings later have been taken into consideration when making a prediction, or the they predicted the situation should have been better. In that case, the time landfill can last will not change or even be shortened. Falling to take into consideration this possibility, the author unfortunately makes his conclusion highly suspicious.

Secondly, the author hastily generalizes that the doubled charges of garbage pickup to increasing recycling. Common sense tells us that there is no casual relationship between. For example, if the original charges are low, then the doubled number will not make a big difference. In addition, if citizens are unsatisfied with the doubled charges and refuse to take any action of recycling, the doubled charge will make a negative influence. Without ruling out this likelihood, the author cannot draw his conclusion supportive.

Thirdly, the author also unfairly equals increasing recycling of aluminum and paper in the past to longer lasting landfill. However, the author ignores the potential change in the future. If these two years are an aberrant and the number may decrease in the future, the landfill would less endurable. In addition, if recycling of other things actually decreased and only these two increased, the situation would also shorten the time. Not taking these into consideration, the claim is unconvincing.

Fourthly, the basic number of convey is open to doubted. Without telling us how many people are asked, the statistics is not pursuable because small number may be a biased sample which is not representative. Moreover, we cannot confirm that the questioned people will do like his claim while many people like to show the good side of himself when asked. In that case, the convey is groundless, which again makes the conclusion unconvincing.

In sum, the author claims that landfill will be more endurable than predicted, but he also commits several fallacies. To better support his claim, the author should make a convey based on more people, and predict more concisely on the future situation. To further evaluate his claim, the author should offer the detail of the prediction and analyze the difference between the predicted situation and the real one.

alickenUID: 2845947

这篇没有细看，感觉和昨天那篇差不多。
我觉得最大的问题(当然我也是这个问题)就是攻击点没有展开。虽然作者写了4个点，但是每个点都没有深入，我以第四点反驳调查数量为例：
Fourthly, the basic number of convey is open to doubted. （We have reasons to suspect that if only a small quantity of citizens participated in the survey, for example just 100 people there, even if 90 people promise they will do more recycling, then what will happen? Nothing, because this small total amount of people have decided that the validity of this survey is weak.） Without telling us how many people are asked, the statistics is not pursuable because small number may be a biased sample which is not representative. Moreover, we cannot confirm that the questioned people will do like his claim while many people like to show the good side of himself when asked. In that case, the convey is groundless, which again makes the conclusion unconvincing.


我觉得蓝色部分应该比红色部分泛泛的谈要有力的多,与其多写几个泛泛的点，倒不如深入写一两个
当然我也展开得不好