argument38

普洱茶UID: 2220388

205The 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."

in this argument , the president recommends that  Amburg (A) will thrive again by reducing crime in installing high intensity lighting throughout A.  To bolster this conclusion, the president cites the condition of Bellevill where use the same way in its central business district and then the vandalism there declined immediately. However, the conclusion is short of unconvincing, because it commits several dubious logical mistakes.

To begin with, the president observes a correlation between high intensity lighting and the decline of vandalism, then supposes that installing high intensity lighting cause the decline of vandalism. However, the president fails to provide the sufficient evident to prove this causal relationship. Lacking such evidence, there might be alternative explanation to declining of vandalism. Perhaps the decline of vandalism results from increaseing number of police, or perhaps there is a new law with more severe punishments than before.

Secondly, even though admitting the assumption that installing high intensity lighting declined vandalism in B, the conclusion is still unreasonable. In asserting that installing high intensity lighting cause the decline of vandalism in Belleville would cause a similar decline in A, the president relies on what might amount to a poor analogy between A and B. on the one hand, it is entirely possible that the situations from two district are totally different, the reason of vandalism in A perhaps is youth's monkeyshine while in B perhaps is showing people's dissatisfaction with the government. On the other hand, A just installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, though it is effective in preventing vandalism, there is no evidence to show it will be effective in other place of the town, perhaps rate of vandalism in other place is still high. Thus, it is too hasty for president to conclude that A should install high intensity lighting though out whole city.

Thirdly, the president equates the decline of vandalism with the decline of crime, and thus ignores most other forms of crime. There is no evidence showing that the decline of vandalism could be representative of the decline of crime. It is entirely possible that while the vandalism is declining, other forms of crime are increasing. Thus, it is unfair to assert that installing lighting is the most effective way to combat crime. Furthermore, there is also no evidence to show that there is a correlation between decline of vandalism and the thrive of the city. The declining neighborhoods perhaps result from other reasons rather than vandalism, for example the bad traffic, the expansive daily consumption. Accordingly, the president's conclusion is unreasonable.

In sum, the president fails to convince us for the reason, if he want to give a reasonable conclusion, he should provide more information about the relationship between installing high intensity lighting and vandalism, the decline of vandalism and that of crime; he also need provide more information about the situations of A and B, showing that the way effected in A also is effected in B.