ARGU16 快考了心急火燎 麻烦大家给指点一下

chrisyUID: 160364

麻烦大家指教 最好告诉我大概是个什么水平 谢谢谢谢

16. 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 per person per year on gambling."






In the letter the arguer claims that in order to improve our state's educational system and public health program they should establish a state lottery just as Lucria did. To support his assertion he cites that Lucria which launched such project does better than us in education and public health fields. Then he points out that the new lottery would be bound to successful considering the capital city survey of citizens spend on gambling. However, the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and it is therefore unconvincing at its stands.

In the first place, the arguer thought Impecunia will be bound to succeed just as Lucria did. The problem is that the two situations of Lucria and Impecunia are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. Many specific factors will influence the result of such enterprise. For example, laws and income level of the two states may probably be different which lead to different attitudes of government and public toward lottery. Even if new lottery is successful in Lucria, it does not necessarily mean that it will be the same in Impecunia.

In the second place, the evidences which the arguer provides in order to illustrate the success of lottery in Lucria is unpersuasive. The fact that Lucria's public health program treats more people than we do does implies Lucria does better in public health. It may probably causes by the high pollution of Lucria which lead to high incidence of illnesses. There are probably other factors contribute to the higher educational investment of Lucria, such as the prosperity of its economy. Unless the arguer can provide more detailed evidence of the contribution of lottery to Lucria's education and public health, it is difficult for us to advocate his assertion only depending on the information above

Finally, the survey of the capital city upon which it relies is unpersuasive for the reason that it cannot represent the entire situation of the whole state. Capital cities are always the centre of economy and culture, therefore the level of life will probably be higher than other areas of Lucria. Moreover, the arguer wrongly equates gambling with lottery which is unwarranted. People who are interested in gambling may participate in many other games rather than lottery. Without a persuasive survey about the attitudes of public about lottery, it is unwise to draw the conclusion that lottery would doubtless be successful.

To sum up, lacking the necessarily specific information about the investment environment of Lucria about state lottery, the arguer's conclusion is unwarranted and problematic. In order to illustrate the feasibility of state lottery, the arguer should provide more convincing and comprehensive survey about attitudes of lottery, market environment and consumption ability of the whole state.

rsrsUID: 146479

我个人不是很喜欢“a series of unsubstantiated assumptions”“the arguer's conclusion is unwarranted and problematic”这样的说法。我的理解是：argument题目本身包含三部分：结论，假设，证据，三者之间存在一定的逻辑关系，我们要么批驳这三者本身，要么批驳作者推导时的逻辑错误。像这道题里有一个调查类错误，属于论据错误；结论有依据但是依据不足以证明结论。所以把错误概括为无据前提不是很妥当。（呵呵，写完发现自己严格遵守“观点－展开论述－结论”，习惯成自然啊）

chrisyUID: 160364

收到 其他方面呢

crazyfox3UID: 171430

无所谓吧，一定要按照论据，推理，结论么，只要指出三个逻辑错误就行吧？？

rsrsUID: 146479

我不是指每篇文章都要找出这三个方面的错误，而是说当你文章中指出有其中两方面的错误时，首尾段不要只说某一个方面有错。

chrisyUID: 160364

楼上提的有道理  关于我的文章本身呢 麻烦给点评价 指出问题和基本水平也好 我现在心理忒没底了

MichaelOwenUID: 126513

感觉论证比较充实，语言也没大问题，如果是限时完成基本可以了
rsrs说的我一开始也没看出来，不过看了感觉确实是，可能是把摸班直接套用而没有想其中的含义吧

chrisyUID: 160364

楼上猜的没错 是用的魔版
不过有意思的是我回去找了一下范文 他也是这么开的头 而后面却论证了其他逻辑错误
无语~~~