argument153 BHN

bhnUID: 2177959

153The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper.

"Ever since the 1950's, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of Alta have steadily increased. This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television¡ªprograms that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.¡ªshould show less violence. Therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time."

19:20--20:05

In order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta,  the arguer recommends that television views should demand that television programmers deduce the amount of violence shown during prime time, which is supported by the paralleled() increase in teenager crimes and violence shown on TV,  several national studies, a survey.  Although so many evidences are given, the argument is still unsound in logic.

First, the paralled trend of between violence shown on TV and teenagers does not necessarily indicates an causal relationship.  Admittedly, if violence shown on TV really causes increasing teenager crime, the two would have the same trend,whereas, the opposite is not always true () fan zhi bu cheng li. There might be some other factors that could cause the increasing crime. Perhaps, schools do not pay as much attention as before to educate students not to crime; or perhaps the whole social environment is not as good as before. Any of these scenarios true, the arguer cannot establish an causal relation between increasing teenager crime and increasing violence shown on TV.

Second, the reliability of the survey conducted by the observer is open to doubt. Although 90 percent of the respondents were parents who advocate that less violence should be shown during prime-time, which seems very convincing data, however, the percentage of respondents accounting for the whole is not provided. Without this data, it is entirely possible that only a few percent response to the survey, for example ten, which is an insufficient number to draw convincing conclusion. It is equally possible that those response the survey are more interesting in it because there children commit crime, while those who did not response to the survey because they thought there does not exist an relation between the two, therefore, think that there is no significance to answer the question. In all, the survey is not reliable until further information is offered.

Third, even granting that there does exist a relation between violence shown on TV and teenagers, there is no evidence that it is the violence shown in prime-time that causes the increasing teenager crime. Perhaps most students do not watch TV in prime-time. Perhaps there is not much violence shown in prime-time. Perhaps, violence shown in other time is what students watch most, therefore, it might be the real cause on teenager crime.

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Evidence given by the arguer cannot well support the recommendation. To define (qd) the real cause of the increasing teenager crime, the arguer has better make a contrast between teenagers who does crimes and who crimes.

cwztyo__UID: 2159050

In order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta,  the arguer recommends that television views should demand that television programmers deduce the amount of violence shown during prime time, which is supported by the paralleled() increase in teenager crimes and violence shown on TV,  several national studies, a survey.  Although so many evidences are given, the argument is still unsound in logic.

First, the paralleled trend of between violence shown on TV and teenagers does not necessarily indicates (用复数)an causal relationship.  Admittedly, if violence shown on TV really causes increasing teenager crime, the two would have the same trend, whereas, the opposite is not always true () fan zhi bu cheng li. There might be some other factors that could cause the increasing crime. Perhaps, schools do not pay as much attention as before to educate students not to crime; or perhaps the whole social environment is not as good as before. Any of these scenarios true（不完整句子）, the arguer cannot establish an causal relation between increasing teenager crime and increasing violence shown on TV.

Second, the reliability of the survey conducted by the observer is open to doubt. Although 90 percent of the respondents were parents who advocate that less violence should be shown during prime-time, which seems very convincing data, however, the percentage of respondents accounting for the whole is not provided. Without this data, it is entirely possible that only a few percent response to the survey, for example ten, which is an insufficient number to draw convincing conclusion. It is equally possible that those responses the survey are more interesting in it because there children commit crime, while those who did not response to the survey because they thought there does not exist an relation between the two, therefore, think that there is no significance to answer the question. In all, the survey is not reliable until further information is offered.

Third, even granting that there does exist a relation between violence shown on TV and teenagers, there is no evidence that it is the violence shown in prime-time that causes the increasing teenager crime. Perhaps most students do not watch TV in prime-time. Perhaps there is not much violence shown in prime-time. Perhaps, violence shown in other time is what students watch most, therefore, it might be the real cause on teenager crime.(过于简单)

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Evidence given by the arguer cannot well support the recommendation. To define (qd) the real cause of the increasing teenager crime, the arguer has better make a contrast between teenagers who does crimes and who crimes.（结尾也过于单调，没有包括所论证的论据）

bhnUID: 2177959

原帖由 cwztyo__ 于 2006-7-10 13:37 发表
In sum, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Evidence given by the arguer cannot well support the recommendation. To define (qd) the real cause of the increasing teenager crime, the arguer has better make a contrast between teenagers who does crimes and who crimes.（结尾也过于单调，没有包括所论证的论据）

没有包括所论证的论据,是什么意思？