Argument205 拍啊拍!!!!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~

向日葵的孩子UID: 162587

------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer recommends that the city of Amburg should install such lighting throughout the city-state by citing the fact that the vandalism in city of Bellevile declined significantly after installing high intensity lighting in its central business district. Nonetheless, the argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical flaws.

The first fallacy committed in this argument is a Post Hoc. That is to say, the installation of high intensity lighting in central business district of Belleville is the sole and sufficient cause of the immediate declining of vandalism, just because the latter happens to follow the former. Yet, this may probably not the case. Other possibilities may explain vandalism declining, for example, government of Belleville validate a more strict law against vandalism, or perhaps Belleville has imposed a heavy police force mainly responsible for vandalism in the central business district. Either of the scenario, if true, may undermine the validity of this argument.

Moreover, another fallacy in this argument is a false analogy. To put it precisely, the dissimilarities between the mentioned two cities may alarmingly outweigh the common things they share. Obviously,  the installation of intensity lighting would cost large quantities of money which is unaffordable for Amburg a city with a low budget in contrast with Belleville a rich city. Also, it is highly possible that the police persons of Amburg are much less effective than that of Belleville, if so, intensity lighting may contribute a little. In short, lacking a comprehensive and persuasive comparison between these two city, any simply transplanted solution may gain little value.

Furthermore, the arguer unfairly equates crime with vandalism, nevertheless, they cannot obviously equate with each other. Crime -- a larger conception -- contains not only vandalism but also burgling and other forms. Even assuming the utility of intensity lighting can make a contribute to the declining of vandalism, how can this measure guarantee the happening of other form of crimes? In addition, the arguer even extrapolates the installation of such lighting to the range of the whole Amburg. This, however, may be a wasteful and meaningless policy. Dose vandalism happen in every inch of the city-state? Dose it exert a bad influence on citizens' sleeping if built in the housing communities? Without any consideration any of these forseeable problems, this installation may cause a even worse effect.

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned and thus lacks credibility. To bolster it, the arguer should offer further investigation and survey about the different situation of the city of Amburg, and hence conclude the ultimate solution.

428 words

chen14404UID: 188687

帮顶！！

这可是MM的作文啊，达人快拍啊~~
唉~现在看到作文就头痛~~

nick530UID: 203367

占个位，晚上改。呵呵

nick530UID: 203367

No.1 Argument205 拍啊拍!!!!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer recommends that the city of Amburg should install such lighting throughout the city-state by citing the fact that the vandalism in city of Bellevile declined significantly after installing high intensity lighting in its central business district. Nonetheless, the argument defies[这个词用的有问题，不知道你想表达什么] simple logic and suffers from several critical flaws.

The first fallacy committed in this argument is a Post Hoc. That is to say, the installation of high intensity lighting in central business district of Belleville is the sole and sufficient cause of the immediate declining of vandalism, just because the latter happens to follow the former.[后半句感觉有点累赘嘛，看着不舒服] Yet, this may probably not the case. Other possibilities may explain vandalism declining,[declining of vandalism] [另起一句，大写]for example, government of Belleville validate a more strict law against vandalism, or perhaps Belleville has imposed a heavy police force mainly responsible for vandalism in the central business district.[这句话是个病句，mainly前加which is] Either of the scenario, if true, may undermine the validity of this argument.

Moreover, another fallacy in this argument is a false analogy. To put it precisely, the dissimilarities between the mentioned two cities may alarmingly outweigh the common things they share. Obviously, the installation of intensity lighting would cost large quantities of money which is unaffordable for Amburg[加个，] a city with a low budget in contrast with Belleville [which is ]a rich city. Also, it is highly possible that the police persons[police就行了] of Amburg are much less effective than that[those]of Belleville, [换一句大写]if so, intensity lighting may contribute a little. In short, lacking a comprehensive and persuasive comparison between these two city, any simply transplanted solution may gain little value.

Furthermore, the arguer unfairly equates crime with vandalism, nevertheless, they cannot [be]obviously equate[equated] with each other. Crime -- a larger conception -- contains not only vandalism but also burgling and other forms. Even assuming the utility of intensity lighting can make a contribute[contribution] to the declining of vandalism, how can this measure guarantee the happening of other form[forms] of crimes[crime]? In addition, the arguer even extrapolates the installation of such lighting to the range of the whole Amburg. This, however, may be a wasteful and meaningless policy. Dose vandalism happen in every inch of the city-state? Dose it exert a bad influence on citizens' sleeping if [it is ]built in the housing communities[排比最好用三句]Without any consideration any of these forseeable problems, this installation may cause a even worse effect.

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned and thus lacks credibility. To bolster it, the arguer should offer further investigation and survey about the different situation of the city of Amburg, and hence conclude the ultimate solution.

428 words

整篇文章写的还算通顺，但小词的运用感觉有点问题，特别是一些词汇，句子结构需要改进一下，经常读不懂。