[a习作temp] argument 10,机井题哦，关于牛奶供应的 [复制链接]

ijwtbk
UID: 172334

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 868
注册时间: 2004-7-31
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-3-5 23:44:00 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

------题目------
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a Batavia newspaper.
'The department of agriculture in Batavia reports that the number of dairy farms throughout the country is now 25 percent greater than it was 10 years ago. During this same time period, however, the price of milk at the local Excello Food Market has increased from $1.50 to over $3.00 per gallon. To prevent farmers from continuing to receive excessive profits on an apparently increased supply of milk, the Batavia government should begin to regulate retail milk prices. Such regulation is necessary to ensure both lower prices and an adequate supply of milk for consumers.'
------正文------
Merely based on some unfounded assumption and dubious evidences, the arguer conclude that the government of Batavia should begin to regulate retail milk price in order to ensure lower prices and adequate supply. To support his conclusion, the arguer points out that the farms is now 25 percent greater than it was 10 years ago. Furthermore, he asserts that the price has increased form 1.5 to 3.00. However, this alone neither constitutes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion nor provides compelling support making the argument sound. the arguer ignores certain important concerns, which must be addressed to prove. In my point of view, this argument suffers form several flaws.
To begin with, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the farm has become 25% than 10 years ago, it does not follow that this enlarge can bring more profit. It is highly possible other factors. For example, the total number of the cow in these farms is decreasing, although the farms are larger than before, or perhaps the cows increase, but the milk they produce is less than 10 years before. Without ruling out these factors, the arguer cannot confidently conclude that the farmers have made more profit.
Furthermore, the arguer attempts to establish a causal relationship between the high price and the more profit. Actually, it is equally possible that the quality of the milk is much better than before. Or perhaps, all the material sold in the market has improved their price, although the price is double, the farmers may even not earn much less than 10 years ago. If the arguer want to make this argument more convincing, he must these possibilities are inexistence.
Last but not least, the arguer think that if the government regular the retail price milk, the price will decrease and still has enough supply , but he falsely depends on a gratuitous assumption. Probably, many farmers may discard to produce milk because of the lower price; they will move their capital to other more profit industry, so the supply cannot meet the need of the consumers. Therefore, the aim of the government for both low price and sufficient supply will surely fail. From this aspect, this argument is unwarranted unless the arguer can make a precise survey to convince us that the supply will still be enough even if the price decreases.
To sum up, the argument is neither logically nor persuasive. To better bolster and strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to guarantee us that the profit of the milk is really higher than which it should be, and whether the regulation is efficient to improve the milk market. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.