Argument 214 【Chasing For "6" Score】小组第一次作业

leiniaUID: 156136

Topic 214: In 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.
Syllabus:
1. there are other factors than money attribute to the good public school education
2. the government in BC are not willing to spend as same proportion of taxes on public school education as that in PC
3.the information about the average amount of money spent on each school is lacked

正文
In this statement, the speaker concludes that residents in Parson City (PC) have more concern than those in Blue City (BC). To support this conclusion, the speaker points out the fact that government of PC spends more money on running public schools than that of BC does. However, the statement suffers from several serious flaws, rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.

The argument's chief problem is that it relies on unsubstantiated assumption that the amount of money represents how much the people care about local public education. Yet logic and common sense inform me that the good school education might have been attributable to many other factors besides money. For example, the regulation of the school and the wholly local educational system are also the key points in public school education. It is very possible that PC put emphasis on the size and appearance of campuses which could symbolize the wealth and image of the city. It is also possible that the residents in BC consider the improvement of quality which costs much less money than the constitution of campus does a more important factor of education. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities, the speaker cannot justifiably conclude that BC inhabitants have less concern about public school education compared PC ones.

Even if the amount of money spent can well represent the concerns of public school education by the residents, one cannot infer that the people are not willing to pay more taxes for public school education. The speaker assumes that the less budget for public schools in BC is attributable to residents' unwilling paying, yet no evidence is offered to substantiate this crucial assumption. Perhaps, it is the BC government who does not care about public school education and spends a smaller part of taxes on the public school budget than PC government does. In short, lacking assurances that the government spends the same proportion of taxes in BC as that in PC, the speaker cannot draw any reliable conclusion based on this assumption.

Even if the inhabitants in BC are not willing to put as much expenditure as those in PC are into public school education, no evidence is offered that they do care about education of public school. It is entirely possible that there are more students in PC, thus more public school is needed than that in BC. It is also possible that there are many private schools in BC, therefore, the government set up only few public schools. Thus, unless the speaker can provide the information about the average money spent on each public, the conclusion is unwarranted.

In conclusion, the speaker's argument is specious. To bolster it, he or she should provide clear evidence that the amount of expenditure is key point of public school education, and that the two governments do want to use the same proportion of taxes in it. Finally, to better evaluate the claim that PC concerns more with public schools, I would need statistics about the average amount of money spent on each school.

stonesundlutUID: 2235257

In this statement, the speaker concludes that residents in Parson City (PC) have more concern than those in Blue City (BC). To support this conclusion, the speaker points out the fact that government of PC spends more money on running public schools than that of BC does. However, the statement suffers from several serious flaws, rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.

The argument's chief problem is that it relies on unsubstantiated assumption that the amount of money represents how much the people care about local public education. Yet logic and common sense inform informs me that the good school education might have been attributable to many other factors besides money. For example, the regulation of the school and the wholly local educational system are also the key points in public school education. It is very possible that PC put puts emphasis on the size and appearance of campuses which could symbolize the wealth and image of the city. It is also possible that the residents in BC consider the improvement of quality which costs much less money than the constitution of campus does a more important factor of education. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities, the speaker cannot justifiably conclude that BC inhabitants have less concern about public school education compared PC ones.

Even if the amount of money spent can well represent the concerns of public school education by the residents, one cannot infer that the people are not willing to pay more taxes for public school education. The speaker assumes that the less budget for public schools in BC is attributable to residents' unwilling paying, yet no evidence is offered to substantiate this crucial assumption. Perhaps, it is the BC government who does not care about public school education and spends a smaller part of taxes on the public school budget than PC government does. In short, lacking assurances that the government spends the same proportion of taxes in BC as that in PC, the speaker cannot draw any reliable conclusion based on this assumption.

Even if(可以变换一下Even assuming that) the inhabitants in BC are not willing to put as much expenditure as those in PC are into public school education, no evidence is offered that they do care about education of public school. It is entirely possible that there are more students in PC, thus more public school is needed than that in BC. It is also possible that there are many private schools in BC, therefore, the government set up only few public schools. Thus, unless the speaker can provide the information about the average money spent on each public, the conclusion is unwarranted.

In conclusion, the speaker's argument is specious. To bolster it, he or she should provide clear evidence that the amount of expenditure is key point of public school education, and that the two governments do want to use the same proportion of taxes in it. Finally, to better evaluate the claim that PC concerns more with public schools, I would need statistics about the average amount of money spent on each school.
LZ的A写得真不错，论证得很有层次感，而且表达得很好，尤其你的起承转合做到很棒，向你学习