argument144 头晕中的超时之作

lakeqianUID: 157560

144 According to a poll of 200 charitable organizations, donations of money to nonprofit groups increased by nearly 25 percent last year, though not all charities gained equally. Religious groups gained the most (30 percent), followed by environmental groups (23 percent), whereas educational institutions experienced only a very small increase in donations (3 percent). This poll indicates that more people are willing and able to give money to charities but that funding for education is not a priority for most people. These differences in donation rates must result from the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than are other kinds of institutions.

The arguer tries to convince us the these differences in donation rates must result from the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than are other kinds of institutions. But the seemingly plausible conclusion is based on several vague evidence and problematic deduction.

First, it is wrongheaded for the arguer to conclude that the poll indicates more people are willing and able to give money to charities. For one thing, the donation increase may not result from that more people are able to give money to charities. It is entirely possible that a millionaire like Bill Gate makes a handsome donation that alone greatly increases the amount of donation while the number of donators may shrink. Besides, it is unwarranted to conclude that more people are willing to give money. The action of donation is unlinked with their willingness. It is possible that, reluctant to donate as they are, they make the donation just to abandon some income and avoid to pay tax. Therefore, their seemingly generosity is derived from concern of their own good rather than their charity. For another thing, it is also possible that some people who have donated in previous years are unwilling to donate any more but the total amount of donation is elevated by a handsome donation by a millionaire.

Second, the assertion that the funding for education is not a priority for most people is open to doubt. （简单数学问题被表述的很麻烦：）That the education experienced only a slight increase in donation by 3% may come out of other possibility. It is likely that the education donation has such a large base amount that a large amount donation merely makes for a slight increase in percentage. For example, if the base amount of education institution is 10 times of that of the religious group, then the donation that can enhance the religious groups' donation by 30% just can enhance that of education institution by 3%. But the two recipients get the same amount of money. As a result it is groundless to say the education institution is low in priority. Besides, even though education gets less money, then we still can not conclude that it is not a priority for most people. Maybe, they just donate less than before which results in the smaller donation increase, but they may still regard education as an important thing and will donate more in the future. (这段可以去掉：Also, the survey is only focused on 200 charitable organizations; the arguer fails to mention if these 200 charitable organizations constitute a considerable part of charitable organization nationwide. If the total number of charitable organizations mounts to 2000 with a majority donators, then to decide the priority of the most people should be focused on their situation of donation. Are their donation consists of a remarkable part of educational donation?)

Suppose the reasons mentioned above right, then, it is too hasty to say the conclusion is rooted in the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than other kinds of institutions. The arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the public know its need of money but the education institutions get most of its fund from other sources. Usually the largest donator to education is the government and the public with the perception of the bad need of educational institution leave the affair to the government and donate in other institution. Hence, the less public donation in education does not bolster that the donators do not know the education institution is in need of money as other sources can meet its need.

To sum up, the argument is undermined by its flaws in terms of vague evidence and questionable deduction. To substantiate it, we should know the number of the donation in respective groups and survey the true attitude of the donators.