argument205 第二篇，请大家拍砖，拍必回

MichaelOwenUID: 126513

题：The 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.'
文：
The recommendation endorsed in this argument is that the city of Amburg should install high intensity lighting to reduce crime and Ambrug could revitalize the declining neighborhoods by this. This claim sounds reasonable at first thought. After all, the author cites that the city of Belleville had installed high intensity lighting in its central business district and vandalism there declined almost immediately. Moreover, the author reasons that Amburg had begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but it is not make efficiency. Nonetheless, this argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

The major problem in this argument is that declined crime in the city of Belleville may not cause by intensity lighting. The author showed evidence that crime declined immediately after high intensity lighting installed. However, it is possible that something other make crime declined. Perhaps number of police increased in business district when high intensity lighting installed. Or perhaps government made a successful persuasion at the same time. If so, evidence cited by the author is not supportable.

Another problem undermines this argument is that high intensity lighting may not the most effective way to combat crime. The author supplied evidence that Amburg had begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district yet it is not reliable. I concede that police on bicycles may not a good way to combat crime. Nevertheless, it could not prove that high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime. There could be some other ways better than high intensity lighting, such as increasing number of police or improve people's moral education. In such cases, the author fails to demonstrate that high intensity lighting was so effective.

Furthermore, installing such lighting throughout Amburg cannot be determined by things happened in business district. The author only provided evidence that the things happened in business district. Accordingly, the author made a deduction that high intensity lighting should be installed throughout Amburg. Nevertheless, it is obviously that business district is only a special place in Amburg. Many people came from many places, and it is hard to administer. Other places in Amburg may not need these high intensity lighting. Thus this evidence is of little use to support the author’s conclusion.

Last but not the least, even if crime reduced, the author cannot say Amburg could revitalize the declining neighborhoods. This claim based on an assumption that crime is the most important reason of declining neighborhoods. Yet this argument contains no evidence to support this assumption. Perhaps state of economy is not so good, or perhaps contamination is terrible worse. Lacking such evidence it is equally possible that other reason make neighborhoods declined.

To sum up, the author fails to address several unconvincing points. To better this argument, the author would have to demonstrate that install high intensity lighting is the best way to decline crime. In addition, crime is the only reason of declining neighborhoods should be proved.

我自己的问题：BODY部分是否要每段总结？
BODY部分前三段我都是先说作者的证据，然后这个不行。。。。。。虽然在句子上尽量避免重复了，但是不是结构上还有些重复？如何改正？

MichaelOwenUID: 126513

自己又改了一下，把每段加上了总结

朽木白哉UID: 195804

The recommendation endorsed in this argument is that the city of Amburg should install high intensity lighting to reduce crime and Ambrug could revitalize the declining neighborhoods by this. This claim sounds reasonable at first thought. After all, the author cites that the city of Belleville had installed high intensity lighting in its central business district and vandalism there declined almost immediately. Moreover, the author reasons that Amburg had begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but it is not make efficiency. Nonetheless, this argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
[按照imong说的 开头长了一点~  不过这样写也不错]


The major problem in this argument is that declined crime in the city of Belleville may not cause by [high]  intensity lighting   [关键词还是照写吧].The author showed evidence that crime declined immediately after high intensity lighting installed. However, it is possible that something other make crime declined. Perhaps number of police [is] increased in business district when high intensity lighting installed. Or perhaps government made a successful persuasion at the same time. If so, evidence cited by the author is not supportable.

Another problem undermines this argument is that high intensity lighting may not the most effective way to combat crime. The author supplied evidence that Amburg had begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district yet it is not reliable. [客观事实不用攻击吧 应该是useless is not reliable. ] I concede [不要用第一人称吧 可以换成 even if] that police on bicycles may not a good way to combat crime. Nevertheless, it could not prove that high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime. There could be some other ways better than high intensity lighting, such as increasing number of police or improve [improving] people's moral education. In such cases, the author fails to demonstrate that high intensity lighting was so effective.

Furthermore, installing such lighting throughout Amburg cannot be determined by things happened in business district. The author only provided evidence that the things happened in business district. Accordingly, the author made a deduction that high intensity lighting should be installed throughout Amburg. Nevertheless, it is obviously that business district is only a special place in Amburg. Many people came from many [different] places, and it is [may be] hard to administer. Other places in Amburg may not need these high intensity lighting. Thus this evidence is of little use to support the author’s conclusion.

Last but not the least, even if crime reduced, the author cannot say Amburg could revitalize the declining neighborhoods. This claim based on an assumption that crime is the most important reason of declining neighborhoods. Yet this argument contains no evidence to support this assumption. Perhaps state of economy is not so good, or perhaps contamination is terrible worse. Lacking such evidence it is equally possible that other reason make neighborhoods declined.

To sum up, the author fails to address several unconvincing points. To better this argument, the author would have to demonstrate that install high intensity lighting is the best way to decline crime. In addition, crime is the only reason of declining neighborhoods should be proved.

整体还不错 还可以多看些模板的语句 body的句型看起来有点单薄
我还多写了vandalism 和 crime 的问题 是最后几个问题塞在一段写的
我也是新人 只有这种水平啦~ ：p
加油

最初由 MichaelOwen 发布
[B] 我自己的问题：BODY部分是否要每段总结？
BODY部分前三段我都是先说作者的证据，然后这个不行。。。。。。虽然在句子上尽量避免重复了，但是不是结构上还有些重复？如何改正？
[/B]

应该是要总结的
arg的模版结构就是这样  不用担心啦

MichaelOwenUID: 126513

最初由 朽木白哉 发布
[B][QUOTE]最初由 MichaelOwen 发布
[B] 我自己的问题：BODY部分是否要每段总结？
BODY部分前三段我都是先说作者的证据，然后这个不行。。。。。。虽然在句子上尽量?.

以下省略...... [/B]

多谢多谢

chenxgUID: 183868

觉得你的格式挺好的，不用改了。
可是单就你这篇文章来说，你文章主体的第一部分和第二部分有点重复，个人觉得。不太好。
要是我写的话，我的结构如下：
首先说明破坏行为可能是和警力的加强有关系或者是这一年的民众教育有关系，和那种灯没有关系；
然后说明和两个城市的具体情况有关系，纪律好的城市人口少，而且人口素质高，避免外来人口的破坏；而纪律差的城市人口多，外来人口非常多，难以管理；
最后说明即使假设和那种灯有关系而且两个城市的基本情况相同，但是和警察骑自行车巡逻的效率有关系；

ivyshoulUID: 195537

我也对BODY要不要总结很郁闷,总觉得总结了就等于说废话,不写也嫌少

我觉得你的言语有些罗嗦,绕来绕去都在说一件事
不过我也有这个毛病啊,今天想限时的说,结果又失败了...写得还很烂...跟你的同一篇

MichaelOwenUID: 126513

不罗嗦觉得字少，字多了就罗嗦，菜鸟的共同矛盾吧

kimi1984UID: 195922

那就看时间定啦，我感觉还是先把能写的写了，还觉得少就补上，前提是把全文写完
楼主写的不错，我限时这样就满足了：）