Argument16 提纲

Luise8891UID: 2906459

16The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a citizen of the state of Impecunia.

"Two years ago our neighboring state, Lucria, began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health. Today, Lucria spends more per pupil than we do, and Lucria's public health program treats far more people than our state's program does. If we were to establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, the profits could be used to improve our educational system and public health program. The new lottery would doubtless be successful, because a survey conducted in our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling."

Luise8891UID: 2906459

1）        the arguer fails to convince us that the result that more tax revenues on education and public health are budgeted in Lucria is due to the supplement of state lottery.first,no solid evidence has been given to prove that the state lottery did contribute to more tax revenues.Then,the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that other policies that have been taken actually increase the tax revenues rather than the state lottery. Finally, maybe the percentage of money used in education and public health werer large ,even though the tax revenues has not been enhanced.
2）        The survey dose not lend strong support to the assumption that the new lottery would be successful without a doubt.First,the study was conducted in the capital city where people might be richer than the people in  small towns or countriside.If that is the case,the average money spent on gambling might be much less than 50 dollars. Secondly, no details of information about the survey are provided.How many people are involved in this survey?Does it cover all kinds of people with different ages , different genders ,different levels of income and different professions?

dreamerdanceUID: 2759402

1. L城市的医疗条件得到改善，但是作者没有给出L城市之前医疗的情况，或许L城市之前的医疗情况就比我们好，抽彩项目并没有给它们的医疗带来很多的好处。
2. 即使抽彩项目确实给L州带来好处，但是缺乏可比性。首先论者没有提供两个城市除了地理相近外的一切相似情况，比如说居民收入，文化风俗，居民年龄行业分布等等，这些都会影响居民对于抽奖的心态。另外论断甚至没有提供该地区在实施这项措施前的状况如何，很有可能他本来就比我们在每个学生上花的钱多，医护的人多，这也可能是因为它人口多。
3．在首都的调查结果不足以说明问题，作者没有给出当地的调查结果，根据常识，首都地区的居民收入会相对高一些，冒险和尝试新险事物的人都会多一些，从而不能代表那些小城市。 或许当地人都不喜欢买彩票，那么这项计划也不会成功。另外，赌博和抽奖是完全不同的概念，所以说论据中没有任何资料表明该州居民对这项抽奖有兴趣，从而不能保证会赚钱。
4．即使这些都满足，但是作者却没有提供任何有关保证它成功的措施。我们知道抽奖的规章以及奖金的制定都是非常复杂的，它既要保证最终赢利，又要用足够的奖金来刺激抽奖者。
5. 最后的最后，即便是当地的人很拥护这个项目，喜欢买彩票，但是彩票带来的收入能够使教育和医疗得到改善吗？有可能当地的医疗和教育调剂比较差，需要投入的资金很多，然而彩票带来的收入不足以改善这些，所以这项计划是否可以成功作者不能说服我。


结论：论断单凭邻近城市的经验和首都地区的调查就得出结论，非常草率。要了解这项措施是否会成功，论者还需要提供一些进一步的资料，比如该州居民对于抽奖的看法，多少人会去买彩票，对于当地教育和公众医疗状况的看法。是否有条件保证其成功。另外邻近城市的经验也值得参考，但需要了解的是当地医疗和教育方面取得的成绩有多少是因为抽奖而带来的。