Argument205 请赐教~谢谢!

tottiUID: 184291

2005年2月14日星期一 14:30-15:10  40min 超时: (          530字
205The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce."
Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime, we should install such lighting throughout Amburg. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."


In this recommendation, the arguer concludes that the high intensity lighting is responsible for the decline of vandalism in Belleville and points out that we should also install such lighting throughout Amburg in order to reduce crime and revitalize the declining neighborhoods in their city. However, this argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

A threshold problem in this recommendation is the arguer observes the correlation between reducing crime and installing lighting in its central business district, then concludes that the latter is the cause of former. However, a correlation is one indication of a casual relationship, but in itself does not suffice to prove a relationship. The arguer fails to rule out other possible important explanations for the decrease of the rate of vandalism. Perhaps the police patrols on bicycles in its business also play an important role in reduce crime. Or perhaps the government takes more effort on educating citizens. In short, without considering and ruling out explanations for the results, the argument cannot justifiably conclude that the casual relationship between them.

In addition, the author provides no evidence that the study’s results are statistically reliable. For one thing, the arguer cites that the last October the vandalism there declined almost immediately in Belleville and the recently the rate of vandalism in Amburg remains constant. The samples should be close enough in time to the generation they are used to support, so that historical changes will not invalidate the generalization. For another thing, it is likely a lot of destroys were not take in account and not in record in this survey. Did the vandalism decline from then on? Perhaps it begins to increase in fact because of the criminals have been familiar with the surroundings. Also before the survey was the vandalism in Amburg more than that in Belleville? And the rate of vandalism also decreased in any other districts of Belleville? if not, the arguer cannot make a convincing argument based on that survey.

Finally, Even if installed high intensity lighting in its central business district can decline the vandalism in Belleville, the mere fact is scant evidence that Amburg would achieve its goal by following Belleville's example. It is more likely that the same course of action would be ineffective on Amburg due to social difference between the two places. Is the diathesis of citizens in Amburg same to Belleville? Maybe Amburg is an immigrate city so that there are many kinds of people in there and the public security is not as good as Belleville. In short, lacking evidence that conditions on the two places are relevantly similar, the arguer cannot convince me on the basis of Belleville’s experience that the proposed course of action would be effective in attaining Amburg’s goals.

In sum, this recommendation is flawed in several critical respects. To bolster the argument the arguer must provide clear all other possible evidence that installed high intensity lighting can reduce crime immediately. Also useful would be any information about the difference between the two cities and other methods of reducing crime are effective in accomplishing its intended objectives, also further investigation is needed before ultimate decision and further action.

感觉论证部分还是不满意,希望大家狂批~ 批我者我必回改!
保证以后每天至少批2篇, 时间好紧,希望大家共同进步.

poohUID: 146994

body1开头部分有些罗素，感觉魔板的痕迹重了点。用太多的套话，就会显得空。

再看body3  中比较不同，只举了一种可能性，那就是居民不同，可能有一个城市有移民，应该尽可能的多考虑其他可能性来驳斥原文。比如：教育程度的不同，家庭状况，经济状况等

tottiUID: 184291

谢谢pooh~
我再好好努力~,争取形成自己的模板.
感觉限时间写平时想的好多都写不出来:(
考虑的不是很周全.