Argument16 感觉反驳不到位啊！

staralwaysUID: 193479

------题目------
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.'


------正文------
Witnessing the change in the neighboring state Lucria's spending on education and public health after a state lottery was carried out since two years ago, the author of the argument hastens to conclude the if the same lottery is established in his own state, Impecunia, it will be successful and the profits gained can be used to improve  educational system and public health program. This argument, seems to be reasonable, however, suffers from several flaws.

Firstly, the author of the argument wrongly establishes a causality between the increased spending on education and public health program in the neighbouring state Lucria is the result of the extra profits gained from the newly state lottery. However, there are many other possibilities which can contribute to the increment. It is entirely like that the overall economy is boosting during the past two years in Lucria, which leads to the increased income of the families. And thus a increase in the government's tax revenues and this increased revenues were used in the public education and health program, rather than the profits gained from the lottery. In addition the lottery may be turn out to be a failure because it is possible that few is interested in it. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot convince us that the lottery is successful and the increased spending on education and health program is gained by the revenues of it.

Secondly, the survey cited is not sufficient as an evidence to show that the same lottery will be a sucess in the state of Impecunia. Firstly the reliability of the survey is open to doubt. The author does not provide us information concerning of how the survey is conducted, what is number of the sampling and in addition, what is the number of respondents. What if 100 citizens were surveyed and only 10 of them responsed, while the total population of the state is 10,000,000? What's more, the survey is carried out in the capital city, what about the situation in other cities? Without giving such information, the outcome of the survey is unconvincing. In addition, even assuming that results of the survey showing that citizens of Impecunia do already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling, it is not necessarily mean that they will spend the money on the lottery. It is possible that the citizens only interested in gambling for a small amount of money when playing some games, such as playing cards, rather put their money in lottery, since they will face higher risks than that of gambling. Thus the lottery is doomed to fail, let alone gaining extra money and giving support to the public education and health programs. Without considering such possibilities, the conclusion that the lottery will be successful is groundless.

In conclusion, the author fails to convince us that his proposal of a same lottery like the one in the nearby state Lucria being carried out is a reasonable one. To strengthen the argument, the author would have showing that the increase spending on the education and health programs in Lucria is the result of the extra revenues gained from the lottery. To better evaluate the argument, the author should sufficient evidence to show that the citizens are interested in lottery and they will shift their spending on gambling to buying the lottery.


拍argument的好象很少哦~~
大家拍拍啦，有文章要改的留连接~~

staralwaysUID: 193479

顶一下~~

巴比伦诺诺UID: 151993

文章没来得及看，先说说我对这个题目的看法。
第一，lucria州开展的项目是两年以前，而现在这个活动还是否在继续或者这个活动是否还适合现在情况，作者都没有给出。
第二，彩票活动能否为我们的城市带来盈利，我们不能就凭lucria州的情况做出判断，毕竟两个州在财政、管理、政策等各方面不尽相同。
第三，调查显示的数据不能充分证明彩票活动的开展会成功，平均每人每年支出50美元用于博彩到底能说明什么，作者并没有给我们做出解释。

只是我的个人意见，仅供参考……

staralwaysUID: 193479

最初由 巴比伦诺诺 发布
[B]文章没来得及看，先说说我对这个题目的看法。
第一，lucria州开展的项目是两年以前，而现在这个活动还是否在继续或者这个活动是否还适合现在情况，作者都没有给出。
第二，彩票活动能否为我们的城市带来盈利，我们不能就凭lucria州的情况做出判断，毕竟两个州在财政、管理、政策等各方面不尽相同。
第三，调查显示的数据不能充分证明彩票活动的开展会成功，平均每人每年支出50美元用于博彩到底能说明什么，作者并没有给我们做出解释。[/B]

呵呵，看法很好啊，每个argument仔细看有好多逻辑错误呢。我打字慢，30分钟只能写两个……