Argument159全文 111提纲 [大杀四方 yibin.he 第四次作业]求拍

yibin.heUID: 2172795

全文
ARGUMENT159 –
The nation of Claria covers a vast physical area. But despite wide geographic differences, many citizens are experiencing rising costs of electricity. A recent study of household electric costs in Claria found that families who cooled their houses with fans alone spent more on electricity than did families using air conditioners alone for cooling. However, those households that reported using both fans and air conditioners spent less on electricity than those households that used either fans or air conditioners alone. Thus, the citizens of Claria should follow the study's recommendation and use both air conditioners and fans in order to save money on electricity.
WORDS: 559          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-6

正文：
In the argument, the arguer recommends that in order to save money on electricity, the citizens of Claria should use both air conditioners and fans in order to save money on electricity. To support this recommendation, the author cites a recent study in which he found that the households using both fans or air-conditioners spent less on electricity than those used either of them. The argument is well-presented, yet has some logical fallacies.

Firstly, from the argument we don't know how many households were investigated in the recent study, which may influence the result of the study. If there are 5000,000 households in Claria, and the study only took 50 households as the objective of it, the sample appears too small and we cannot get an effective conclusion from the investigation of the small sample.

Secondly, those samples in the study cited by the arguer probably not comparable. The study compares the electric costs of families who use fans alone with that of families who use airconditioners alone at first, and the author didn't mention anything about what kind of families are chosen in both samples, perhaps  the families who use the fans alone are chosen from the areas where the temperature is always high and require people to use electricity more, while the households who use air-conditioners alone are chosen from cooler area in Claria, thus the result is undoubtedly that the costs of the former sample is higher than that of the latter. Then the argument presented the comparison between the households who use both and those who use either, making the same mistake about the comparability of the samples. Unless the arguer provide enough evidence that the families chosen in different samples are comparable, I'm not convinced with the conclusion of the study.

Finally, even if the conclusion of the study is correct, the author draws a hasty conclusion that the citizens in Claria should use both air-conditioners and fans to save money based on the assumption that this is the only reason that causes the high electricity costs, and yet the author didn't substantiate convincingly the assumption. Lack of sufficient evidence of it, it is as likely that perhaps those households who use both fans and air-conditioners happen to be the families of which all the members are not in their homes during the daytime, and only use the electricity at night, when the air cools down and they needn't use much electricity to keep cool, while the families who use either fans or air-conditioners are those whose members are in home all day long; or perhaps the families who use both all use the appliances that are powerfrugal, while the other families all use common appliances that don't save electricity. All these possibilities that the arguer didn't count in will serve to undermine the recommendation in the argument.

In sum, the recommendation that the citizens should use both fans and air-conditioners is not convincible. To better support this argument, the author should present more detailed and complete, esp. comparable statistics of the study that can effectively arrive at the conclusion of the study presented in the argument. To better access the argument, we need more evidence that the main reason of the high electricity costs is just one which is using either fans or air-conditioners alone instead of both of them.


提纲
ARGUMENT111 –

The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of marketing at Dura-Sock, Inc.

"A recent study of Dura-Sock wearers suggests that our company is wasting the money it spends on its patented "Endure" manufacturing process, which ensures that our socks are strong enough to last for two years. Dura-Sock has always advertised its use of the "Endure" process, but the new study shows that the average Dura-Sock customer actually purchases new Dura-Socks every three months. Furthermore, Dura-Sock customers surveyed in our largest market, northeastern United States cities, say that they most value Dura-Sock's stylish appearance and availability in many colors. These findings suggest that Dura-Sock can increase its profits by discontinuing its use of the "Endure" manufacturing process."

1.The vice president cannot simply say that the Dura-Sock wastes their money advertising its use of the "Endure "process by citing the result of the study, for that maybe customers buy the socks every three months because they wnat more socks during the period that the study investigated and the like.

2.The arguer didn't provide enough evidence to the accuracy of the survey taken in the largest market. Perhaps the survey taken was in the form of multiple choices which didn't provide the choice of "Endurance", thus made the survey unconvincible and preferable.

3.Even what mentioned the above are all correct, the vice president still cannot reach the hasty conclusion that Dura-Sock can increase its profits by the suggested way, because there are many other reasons that can influence the profit such as the market, the price and what the potential competitors' actions are.

lrihUID: 2264506

In the argument, the arguer recommends that in order to save money on electricity, the citizens of Claria should use both air conditioners and fans in order to save money on electricity. To support this recommendation, the author cites a recent study in which he found that the households using both fans or air-conditioners spent less on electricity than those used either of them. The argument is well-presented, yet has some logical fallacies.

Firstly, from the argument we don't know how many households were investigated in the recent study, which may influence the result of the study. If there are 5000,000 households in Claria, and the study only took 50 households as the objective of it, the sample appears too small and we cannot get an effective conclusion from the investigation of the small sample.

Secondly, those samples in the study cited by the arguer probably not comparable. 这句少个BeThe study compares the electric costs of families who use fans alone with that of families who use airconditioners alone at first, and the author didn't mention anything about what kind of families are chosen in both samples, perhaps  the families who use the fans alone are chosen from the areas where the temperature is always high and require people to use electricity more, while the households who use air-conditioners alone are chosen from cooler area in Claria, thus the result is undoubtedly that the costs of the former sample is higher than that of the latter. Then the argument presented the comparison between the households who use both and those who use either, making the same mistake about the comparability of the samples. 感觉此段太罗嗦，可能性推测太少了，这里无非就是说气候的不同会使样本无可比性，可一句话带过，可以看看ETS的范文，基本上一个可能性一两句话Unless the arguer provide providesenough evidence that the families chosen in different samples are comparable, I'm not convinced with 应用of吧the conclusion of the study.

Finally, even if the conclusion of the study is correct, the author draws a hasty conclusion that the citizens in Claria should use both air-conditioners and fans to save money based on the assumption that this 指代什么呢，是前面的use both air-conditioners and fans么，按题目来看应该是引起low electricity costs 的啊is the only reason that causes the high electricity costs, and yet the author didn't substantiate convincingly the assumption. Lack of sufficient evidence of it, it is as likely that perhaps those households who use both fans and air-conditioners happen to be the families of which all the members are not in their homes during the daytime, and only use the electricity at night, when the air cools down and they needn't use much electricity to keep cool, while the families who use either fans or air-conditioners are those whose members are in home all day long; or perhaps the families who use both all use the appliances that are power frugal, while the other families all use common appliances that don't save electricity. All these possibilities that the arguer didn't count in will serve to undermine the recommendation in the argument.

In sum, the recommendation that the citizens should use both fans and air-conditioners is not convincible. To better support this argument, the author should present more detailed and complete, esp. comparable statistics of the study that can effectively arrive at the conclusion of the study presented in the argument. To better access assessthe argument, we need more evidence that the main reason of the high electricity costs is just one which is using either fans or air-conditioners alone instead of both of them.
从内容来看，作者主要攻击了三处逻辑错误，
调查研究的样本规模可能太小无法得出有效结论
可能由于各地区气候不同，调查样本之间不具有可比性，
降温方式的选择不是高电力支出的唯一因素
个人觉得第二处错误可归为第三处错误，他因法，温度不同引起电力花费不同
作者对逻辑错误攻击得太少了点，遗漏了主要的逻辑错误，比如：居民会愿意购买Fans and air conditioners来省电费么，可能Fans and air conditioners的市场价格比省下的电费还要多，而且二者功能上替代。
把与结论最直接的错误的攻击放在正文的最前面，个人觉得先摆出正文第三段的攻击更好，而不是一开头就谈样本之类
从结构上看很清晰，段内过渡挺流畅的，连接词用得很好