argu205 有点感觉了：）

haiyaUID: 187989

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

In this argument, the arguer recommends that they should install lighting throughout Amburg. To justify the claim, the arguer cited the example of Belleville where vandalism has declined immediately since the lighting is installed in its central business district. Additionally, the arguer assumes that Amburg will be revitalized after the crime is reduced. The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

Firstly, the argument is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that the crime in Amburg will decrease by using high lighting in business district as that in Belleville. The groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons fro the discrepancy in Amburg and Bellevile such as the type of vandalism and other measures. We have no information that the extra measure Bellevile took to control the vandalism. Perhaps, they enhance the police and put curfew into force. Even if the lighting is effective in controlling the crime, it is possible that the vandalism in Bellevile is focused in business district at night while that in Amburg is in countryside in day time. Additionally, even though the vandalism in Amburg declines, it is not certainly that the crime will be reduced. Perhaps, the amount to vandalism in Amburg is less than 1% of crime and the amount of other major crimes still maintains high. Therefore, if Amburg install the high lighting in business strict, it is no guarantee that the crime in Amburg will decrease.

Secondly, there is no information available to establish any relationship between the constant rate of vandalism and the inefficiency of police patrols. On the on hand, the arguer ignores the detail that police patrols on bicycle limit the speed of police. It is likely that the vandalism is committed by people who own car so that the police are unable to catch them and warn their behavior. On the other hand, perhaps the criminal commit vandalism insides in order to escape from the attention of the police patrols by bicycle on the street. Additionally, referring to the whole Amburg, there are no convincible information to demonstrate the inefficiency of the police patrol only according the assumption that the police patrols in business street are not practical. The people in some districts may be fear about the coercive power of police and don’t dare to commit crime. Without precluding these possibilities, we would have considerable doubt on the argument’s conclusion that the police patrols have less impact on the declining rate of vandalism.

Thirdly, the writer equates the reducing crime to revitalization. The arguer fails to take into account the true cause of the declining neighborhoods in Amburg. There are several possible alternative causes for the declining neighborhood. For example the economic depression in Amburg makes people suffer from poverty and starvation, or maybe the epidemic springs all over the Amburg so that people leave for other state.  Perhaps reason for declining neighborhood is simply for the deterioration of environment. Even it is likely that the crime rate in Amburge is the least in the nation. Without ruling out these and other possibilities, the argument fails to convincible by showing no causal linkage between the revitalization and reducing crime.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the efficiency of the highlighting about reducing the crime in Amburg. To better solidify the argument, we need more information about the true reason for the declining neighborhood.

DriverEntryUID: 143979

提醒一下，题目格式不对，ARGUMENT要全写 。

冥界星灿UID: 184746

占座，下午四点前

妖妖UID: 149770

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

In this argument, the arguer recommends that they should install lighting throughout Amburg. To justify the claim, the arguer cited the example of Belleville where vandalism has declined immediately since the lighting is installed in its central business district. Additionally, the arguer assumes that Amburg will be revitalized after the crime is reduced. The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

Firstly, the argument is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that the crime in Amburg will decrease by using high lighting in business district as that in Belleville. The groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons fro （FOR， TYPO ：）） the discrepancy in Amburg and Bellevile such as the type （TYPES） of vandalism and other measures. We have no information that the extra measure Bellevile took to control the vandalism. Perhaps, they enhance the police and put curfew into force. Even if the lighting is effective in controlling the crime, it is possible that the vandalism in Bellevile is focused in business district at night while that in Amburg is in countryside  in day time. Additionally, even though the vandalism in Amburg declines, it is not certainly that the crime will be reduced. Perhaps, the amount to （OF 是不是跟好呢）vandalism in Amburg is less than 1% of crime and the amount of other major crimes still maintains high. Therefore, if Amburg install （INSTALLED） the high lighting in business strict, it is no guarantee that the crime in Amburg will decrease.

Secondly, there is no information available to establish any relationship between the constant rate of vandalism and the inefficiency of police patrols. On the on hand, the arguer ignores the detail that police patrols on bicycle limit the speed of police. It is likely that the vandalism is committed by people who own car so that the police are unable to catch them and warn their behavior. On the other hand, perhaps the criminal commit vandalism insides in order to escape from the attention of the police patrols by bicycle on the street.（这句话没有SUPPORT 你的段落，或者是这句话说的太糊了，你是不是要说，在室内的公物破坏可以逃避警察？？我觉得，这样说是有逻辑的错误的，因为在室内搞破坏不一定就意味着街上的警察可以看不见。 我认为应该说，他们利用别的方法来逃避警察  On the other hand, the criminal try their best to commit secretly to avoid the attention of police partrols by bicycle on the street. ）Additionally, referring to the whole Amburg, there are no convincible information to demonstrate the inefficiency of the police patrol only according the assumption that the police patrols in business street are not practical（是不是可以加一句，based on the constant crime rate of vandalism）. The people in some districts may be fear about the coercive power of police and don’t dare to commit crime. Without precluding these possibilities, we would have considerable doubt on the argument’s conclusion that the police patrols have less impact on the declining rate of vandalism.

Thirdly, the writer equates the reducing crime to revitalization. The arguer fails to take into account the true cause of the declining neighborhoods in Amburg. There are several possible alternative causes for the declining neighborhood. For example the economic depression in Amburg makes people suffer from poverty and starvation, or maybe the epidemic springs all over the Amburg so that people leave for other state(states). Perhaps reason for declining neighborhood is simply for the deterioration of environment. Even it is likely that the crime rate in Amburge is the least in the nation. Without ruling out these and other possibilities, the argument fails to convincible by showing no causal linkage between the revitalization and reducing crime.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the efficiency of the highlighting about reducing the crime in Amburg. To better solidify the argument, we need more information about the true reason for the declining neighborhood.
补充一个错误： 就是vandalism declined 和 installed high intensity lighting 只是CONSEQUENT RELATIONSHIP NOT THE CASUAL RELATIONSHIP，两者之间还是有相当大的 RANDOM, 所以我们不能直接就认为，灯在B市就是成功的。

冥界星灿UID: 184746

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

In this argument, the arguer recommends that they should install lightinghigh intensity lighting throughout Amburg. To justify the claim, the arguer cited the example of Belleville where vandalism has declined immediately since the lighting is installed in its central business district. Additionally, the arguer assumes that Amburg will be revitalized after the crime is reduced. The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

Firstly, the argument is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that the crime in Amburg will decrease by using high lighting in business district as that in Belleville. The groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons frofor the discrepancy in Amburg and Bellevile such as the type of vandalism and other measures. We have no information thatthat=>about the extra measure Bellevile took to control the vandalism. Perhaps, they enhance the police and put curfew into force. Even if the lighting is effective in controlling the crime, it is possible that the vandalism in Bellevile is focused in business district at night while that in Amburg is in countryside in day time. Additionally, even though the vandalism in Amburg declines, it is not certainly that the crime will be reduced. Perhaps, the amount to vandalism in Amburg is less than 1% of crime and the amount of other major crimes still maintains high. Therefore, if Amburg install the high lighting in business strict, it is no guarantee that the crime in Amburg will decrease.总感觉这段说的东西有点多，很杂

Secondly, there is no information available to establish any relationship between the constant rate of vandalism and the inefficiency of police patrols. On the onone hand, the arguer ignores the detail that police patrols on bicycle limit the speed of police. It is likely that the vandalism is committed by people who own car so that the police are unable to catch them and warn their behavior. On the other hand, perhaps the criminal commit vandalism insides? in order to escape from the attention of the police patrols by bicycle on the street. Additionally后半句与前文没有递进关系，也不是并列, referring to the whole Amburg, there are no convincible information to demonstrate the inefficiency of the police patrol only according the assumption that the police patrols in business street are not practical这句话有两个主谓？. The people in some districts may be fear about the coercive power of police and don’t dare to commit crime. Without precluding these possibilities, we would have considerable doubt on the argument’s conclusion that the police patrols have less impact on the declining rate of vandalism.

Thirdly, the writer equates the reducing crime towith? revitalization. The arguer fails to take into account the true cause of the declining neighborhoods in Amburg. There are several possible alternative causes for the declining neighborhood?. For example, the economic depression in Amburg makes people suffer from poverty and starvation, or maybe the epidemic springs all over the Amburg so that people leave for other state楼主想象力好丰富^_^. Perhaps reason for declining neighborhood is simply for the deterioration of environment. Even it is likely that the crime rate in Amburge is the least in the nation. Without ruling out these and other possibilities, the argument fails to convincible by showing no causal linkage between the revitalization and reducing crime.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the efficiency of the highlighting about reducing the crime in Amburg. To better solidify the argument, we need more information about the true reason for the declining neighborhood.

haiyaUID: 187989

a !!!不好意思啊，因为我在pp3里做的，所以题目后来贴的，估计手动作太快，自己也没注意到，给大家带了麻烦了。抱歉。

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."

：）
第一眼看到第一位同学的评语，错看成我的argu写的格式不对，要重写。。。一身冷汗。。。后来才弄明白是我的题目的问题。

haiyaUID: 187989

谢谢MJXC和妖妖。
我的单复数还要时刻提醒自己。

里面那句同时都指出的病句确实是病句。

equat to 和with 貌似都可以的，我刚google过了。