小弟就一菜鸟，刚开始练argument，求高人给个评价吧

ruizhu2002UID: 192992

The 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 dollars per person per year on gambling."

In this argument the writer claims that Lucria, a neighboring state, benefited a lot from the state lottery and their education and public health taxes have been supplemented. It is also said that if a state lottery is put into practice in Impecunia, it would be a great success and educational and public health programs would be more developed. The statement seems reasonable, however, there are several logical problems.

First, the success of Lucria’s lottery policy in the last two years does not mean that there will also be another success in Impecunia now or in the future. There might be many factors that caused the profits in Lucria in the last two years, such as the increase in the entire country, the development of industry due to the coming of investments, the average income increases because of decline of unemployment rate, and so on. However, the situation at present may have been greatly change to be quite different with that two years ago, so there is no further proof that lottery would surely make a financial benefit. Furthermore, there must be many differences between situations in the two states, such as economic states, citizen’s interests and traffic conditions, because of which the lottery policy might not be applied to Impecunia in the same way.

Second, it makes no sense that Lucria spends more per pupil than we do and its public health program treats far more people than our state’s does. Before making such a comparison, the author should tell the economic conditions and consuming levels in the two states. Different states must exhibit a marked difference in consuming level. For instance, citizens in Los Angeles have to pay much more than those who live in Texas. Therefore, if Lucria’s economy is much better than Impecunia, the life in Lucria must be more expensive than that in Impecunia. In addition, the traffic condition and the population are also of great importance when comparing the two states. Lucria may have a very bad traffic condition and the pupils there have to walk or take buses to school which cost more. If the population of Lucria is much larger than that in Impecunia, the public health program would inevitably have to treat more people in the former state than that in the latter one.

Third, spending 50 dollars per person per year on gambling does not mean that the state has gained profits. Profit not only relates the revenue, but also has something to do with the cost. If one person pays 50 dollars per year to gamble, the total sum of revenue might be a large number, however, there is no statement of the cost in raising the gambling that the state has to pay in the argument. Therefore, we cannot see any proof of success.

It is rash to make conclusions only from the experiences of the nearby state and the survey in the capital city. The writer has to make a poll in the whole state to see people’s views towards the state lottery. Moreover, he also has to investigate how much contribution the lottery has made to education and public health in Lucria, and make a detail comparison between the same and different points in the two states.