argument214 【Chasing For "6" Score】第一次作业

halloween31UID: 2291335

argument214 【Chasing For "6" Score】第一次作业

214In each city in the region of Treehaven, the majority of the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the value they place on public education. For example, Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. It seems clear, therefore, that Parson City residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents.

Outline:
1. P&B the incomings maybe not same, taxes revenue  not same
2. p&b the number of students in the public school
3. money is just one aspect of caring public school

In this argument, the author of the editorial states that the cities Parson City and Blue City in the region of Treehaven are different in the value they place on public education, Parson City residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents. To support this conclusion, the arguer states that Person City typically budgets twice as much as money per year as Blue City does for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies and is ultimately unconvincing.

In the first place, the writer cites Person City typically budgets twice as much as money per year as Blue City does for its public schools. We don’t know anything about the level of incomings in Person City or Blue City. Maybe the residents of Parson City earn more money than the Blue City ones do, maybe the taxes revenue of Parson City is higher than Blue City, so it's more money to need for the same equipment for the public school because of the Parson City higher level living style.

In either case, the arguer just cites that Parson City and Blue City both have about the same number of residents. But the same number of residents doesn't mean the same number of students in the public school. The arguer mixes up the two conceptions. Maybe Parson City has three times students than Blue City in their public school, then it is clearly that Parson City must budget more money per year than Blue City.

Finally, the arguer just cites the money which is just one aspect of supporting the public school. We should consider a problem in all its aspects. Besides suppoting money, we also can care public education by teaching the professors, establishing the more suitable plan for the students.

In summary, the arguer's argument ultimately fails because there is no basis in fact for his or her conclusion. To make the argument stronger and more believable, the arguer should [resent direct evidence that Parson City residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents, not just because more money is budgeted. The writer must also cite more data about the ceremony between Parson City and Blue City to thoroughly prove his or her argument.

rickbaiUID: 2206364

In this argument, the author of the editorial states that the cities Parson City and Blue City in the region of Treehaven are different in the value they place on public education,[:] Parson City residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents. To support this conclusion, the arguer states that Person City typically budgets twice as much as[-as] money per year as Blue City does for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies and is ultimately unconvincing.

In the first place, the writer cites Person City typically budgets twice as much as money per year as Blue City does for its public schools. We don’t know anything about the level of incomings in [+neither]Person City or[nor] Blue City. Maybe the residents of Parson City earn more money than the Blue City ones[those in BC] do,[;] maybe the taxes revenue of Parson City is higher than Blue City, so it's more money to need[more money is needed] for the same equipment for the public school because of the Parson City['s] higher level living style[level of living].

In either case, the arguer just cites that Parson City and Blue City both have about the same number of residents. But the same number of residents doesn't mean the same number of students in the public school. The arguer mixes up the two conceptions. Maybe Parson City has three times students [+more]than Blue City in their public school, then it is clearly[clear] that Parson City must budget more money per year than Blue City.

Finally, the arguer just cites[studies] the money[budget] [+,]which is just one aspect of supporting[one way to support] the public school. We should consider a problem in all its aspects. Besides suppoting [+with]money, we also can[can also] care public education by teaching the professors[furthur training the faculty],[逗号换成and] establishing the[-the] more suitable plan for the students.


In summary, the arguer's argument[arguer argument用一个就可以了] ultimately fails because there is no basis in fact for his or her conclusion[because no sound proof is given to support the conclusion]. To make the argument stronger and more believable[convincing], the arguer should [p]resent direct evidence that Parson City residents care more about public school education than do[-do] Blue City residents, not just because more money is budgeted[not just a higher budget]. The writer must also cite more data about the ceremony between Parson City and Blue City to thoroughly prove his or her argument.