argument239 [四海一家]第三次作业

aiduduUID: 2264857

TOPIC: ARGUMENT239 - The following appeared as an editorial in the local newspaper of Dalton.

"When the neighboring town of Williamsville adopted a curfew four months ago that made it illegal for persons under the age of 18 to loiter or idle in public places after 10 p.m., youth crime in Williamsville dropped by 27 percent during curfew hours. In Williamsville's town square, the area where its citizens were once most outraged at the high crime rate, not a single crime has been reported since the curfew was introduced. Therefore, to help reduce its own rising crime rate, the town of Dalton should adopt the same kind of curfew. A curfew that keeps young people at home late at night will surely control juvenile delinquency and protect minors from becoming victims of crime."
WORDS: 401          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-7

In this argument, the arguer suggests the town of Dalton should adopt the same kind of curfew in the town of Williamsville to reduce the rate of crime. To justify his conclusion, the arguer cite the  dropped statistics of the youth crime in Williamsville and the evidence that no single crime has been reported in the Williamsville's town square where used to be the place of high crime rate since the curfew was adopted. The suggestion may be reasonable at the first glance, but there are many fallacies after the careful examination.

To begin with, the premise of the conclusion is groundless. There is no information to indicate that the crimes are mostly done by the persons under the age of 18 and the curfew will be useful. If the crimes are mostly done by the persons beyond the age of 18, the curfew may not be useful in controlling the crime rate. Even the crimes are attributed to the youth, there is no evidence to show that they likes to do crimes after 10p.m.. Maybe most of the crimes in this area are the kinds of public facilities damages. The youth may like to do such damages in daytimes in order to get more exciting. In such case, the curfew is not useful as well.

In addition, the evidence provided in the argument can not strongly support the arguer's conclusion. The arguer cites the evidence that the youth crime in Williamsville dropped by 27 percent during curfew hours. There is no more information to tell us the whole crime rate in this area. Maybe the whole crime rate is higher during the curfew hours because less people are in the pubic places. So the statistics showed in the argument can not support the conclusion. Furthermore, the arguer indicates that no single crime been reported in Williamsville's square where used to be the outraged place at the high crime to show that the curfew is useful. It may be the fact that nobody wants to do crimes in such noticeable places while the crime rate in other places get higher.

Finally, the arguer overlooks other factors leading none reported crime. It is possible that no single crime has been reported because no visible crime was discovered. It may be that the victims                                             are afraid that their reputation would be damaged after reporting crimes or they are threaten by the criminals.

To sum up, the arguer makes a hasty conclusion without collect sufficient information and does deeper research. To convince people, the arguer has to provide exact evidence to show by which the crimes are caused. Furthermore, the arguer should do more research on the type of crimes and the time pattern that the crimes happened.

Puppy22UID: 2239597

In this argument, the arguer suggests the town of Dalton should adopt the same kind of curfew in the town of Williamsville to reduce the rate of crime. To justify his conclusion, the arguer cite the  dropped statistics of the youth crime in Williamsville and the evidence that no single crime has been reported in the Williamsville's town square where used to be the place of high crime rate since the curfew was adopted. [用个连词拆成两句，太长了]The suggestion may be reasonable at the first glance, but there are many fallacies after the careful examination.
To begin with, the premise of the conclusion is groundless. There is no information to indicate that the crimes are mostly done[committed] by the persons under the age of 18 and the curfew will be useful.[这里用and表示什么？] If the crimes are mostly done by the persons beyond the age of 18[用adults即可], the curfew may not be useful in controlling[decreasing降低] the crime rate. Even the crimes are attributed to the youth, there is no evidence to show that they likes to do crimes after 10p.m.. [to show that they are more likely to committee crimes after the curfew.] Maybe most of the crimes in this area are the kinds of public facilities damages[are the damages to public facilities]. The youth may like to do such damages in daytimes in order to get more exciting. [The youth may prefer more excitement by doing such damages in daytime.] In such case, the curfew is[will be] not useful as well[at all?].
In addition, the evidence provided in the argument can not strongly support the arguer's conclusion. The arguer cites the evidence that the youth crime in Williamsville dropped by 27 percent during curfew hours. There is no more information to tell us the whole crime rate in this area. Maybe the whole crime rate is higher during the curfew hours because less people are in the pubic places.[逻辑错误？confused] So the statistics showed in the argument can not support the conclusion. Furthermore, the arguer indicates that no single crime been reported in Williamsville's square where used to be the outraged place at the[a] high crime [rate]to show[which shows] that the curfew is useful. It may be the fact that nobody wants to do crimes in such noticeable places while the crime rate in other places get higher.
Finally, the arguer overlooks other factors leading none reported crime. It is possible that no single crime has been reported because no visible crime was discovered. It may be that the victims are afraid that their reputation would be damaged after reporting crimes or they are threaten[ed] by the criminals. [可以证明数据的不可靠，但是感觉不是那么有说服力，难道说当宵禁开始后更多的人被罪犯威胁了所以就没crime reported了？]
To sum up, the arguer makes a hasty conclusion without collect[ing] sufficient information and does[doing] deeper research[es]. [In order] To convince people, the arguer has to provide [more] exact evidence to show by which the crimes are caused.[showing the causes of crimes.] Furthermore, the arguer should do more research[es] on the type of crimes and the time pattern that the crimes happened[happen].
[字数少了点，感觉论据不是很充分。可以多变化一些句式。基本的意思还是表达出来了。中间那句话是不是你写错了，看不太懂，感觉像是你自己写作中的逻辑错误]