argument61 宝贝小猪交作业了，呵呵，求拍

宝贝小猪UID: 2135340

ARGU
61The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria.

"Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years."
提纲:
    1,1:5的比例够了吗？学生都能用电脑吗？即使够了这个比例也是全国的比例，能推广到其他地区么？
    2，作者说电脑数量多了，一定能使学生们电脑的操作能力提高么？答案使否定的
    3，即使在E地区电脑的数量满足，那么就没有原因花钱去提高学校的其他的技术了么？不一定
In the argument, the arguer put forward that Eyleria will not spend educational expenditure on computers and technology in the future. At the first glance, it seems plausible in light of some premises the arguer presents to put back up the conclusion, such as the ratio of the computer and the evidence that with the computer the skill of using computer will enhance. Upon a closer scrutiny, however, some fallacies hidden in the argument will betray the writer's reasoning in that he fails to take into consideration other factors which may have influence to the conclusion.

In the first place, the arguer makes this conclusion based on the premise that computers are sufficient to the students. However this no evidence to show this condition. Although the national ratio is 1:5, it cannot show that all the students in the nation can use the computer and that is to say someone may not have the chance to use the computer. This can even reflect that the nation is short of computers. Even if the data is right to show that the nation is sufficient in computers but it cannot represent the other district is also sufficient in computers. It is entirely possible in some places the number of computers is excessively and on the contrary in other places it is the dearth of computers is severely. Without ruling out these possibilities the speaker cannot convince me of his conclusion.

However, even the number of computer is large enough, is it equal that the students will proficient in manipulate the computer? Obviously the answer is negative. If there are many computers in the school but there is no computer skill classes or have little in a certain time, then the outcomes of the student can be imagined. Even if student use these computers, they always play internet games which takes the place of manipulation classes, the skill will not be changed even there is a decline in student's records. So the mere fact is insufficient to support the conclusion that Eyleria will not spent money on computer and technology.

What's more, the arguer believed that there is no reason to spent any of the school's budgets on other technology; however, it is not persuasive as it stands. The speaker overlooks other aspects on which money should be spent. In order to develop student's skill school not only use computers but use technologies such as projector, video and so on. It is entirely possible that it is starve for much money to maintain them or to purchase modern ones. With this can school enhance the quality of education and can attract more students to study there. So, the conclusion is persuasive.

In closing, having viewed all the aspects above, we do not feel difficult to draw the conclusion that the ratiocinations is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. In order to make a convincing analysis, it is highly recommended that the whether the ratio is show that the computer is sufficient to the students and besides the computer school will not develop other technology in the next few years.

abobibbyUID: 2174676

ARGU
61The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria.

"Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years."
提纲:
    1,1:5的比例够了吗？学生都能用电脑吗？即使够了这个比例也是全国的比例，能推广到其他地区么？
    2，作者说电脑数量多了，一定能使学生们电脑的操作能力提高么？答案使否定的
    3，即使在E地区电脑的数量满足，那么就没有原因花钱去提高学校的其他的技术了么？不一定
In the argument, the arguer put forward that Eyleria will not spend educational expenditure （不搭配）on computers and technology in the future. At the first glance, it seems plausible in light of some premises the arguer presents to put back up the conclusion, such as the ratio of the computer and the evidence that with the computer the skill of using computer will enhance. Upon a closer scrutiny, however, some fallacies hidden in the argument will betray the writer's reasoning in that he fails to take into consideration other factors which may have influence to the conclusion.

In the first place, the arguer makes this conclusion based on the premise that computers are sufficient to the students. However this no evidence to show this condition. Although the national ratio is 1:5, it cannot show that all the students in the nation can use the computer （我觉得去批驳作者的前提意义不大）and that is to say someone may not have the chance to use the computer. This can even reflect that the nation is short of computers. Even if the data is right to show that the nation is sufficient in computers but it cannot represent the other district is also sufficient in computers. It is entirely possible in some places the number of computers is excessively and on the contrary in other places it is the dearth of computers is severely. Without ruling out these possibilities the speaker cannot convince me of his conclusion.
（1：5 和 1：7是有很大区别的阿）
However, even the number of computer is large enough, is it equal that the students will proficient in manipulate the computer? Obviously the answer is negative. If there are many computers in the school but there is no computer skill classes or have little in a certain time, then the outcomes of the student can be imagined. Even if student use these computers, they always play internet games which takes the place of manipulation classes, the skill will not be changed even there is a decline in student's records. So the mere fact is insufficient to support the conclusion that Eyleria will not spent money on computer and technology.（和俺写的差不多）

What's more, the arguer believed that there is no reason to spent any of the school's budgets on other technology; however, it is not persuasive as it stands. The speaker overlooks other aspects on which money should be spent. In order to develop student's skill school not only use computers but use technologies such as projector, video and so on. It is entirely possible that it is starve for much money to maintain them or to purchase modern ones. With this can school enhance the quality of education and can attract more students to study there. So, the conclusion is persuasive.

In closing, having viewed all the aspects above, we do not feel difficult to draw the conclusion that the ratiocinations is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. In order to make a convincing analysis, it is highly recommended that the whether the ratio is show that the computer is sufficient to the students and besides the computer school will not develop other technology in the next few years.

除了第一点以外，我们批驳的错误差不多，呵呵

宝贝小猪UID: 2135340

这个，，，，不是的啊，我给你看一个帖子
关于阿狗论证的，你说了批前提不重要，但是我觉得很重要的说，呵呵
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D100

小室黄瓜UID: 2155213

seat taken!