Argument227 习作同修改，欢迎同拍，必回

njuzhshaoUID??2258118

题目：ARGUMENT227 - The following appeared as an editorial in a local newspaper.
"In order to attract visitors to Central Plaza downtown and to return the plaza to its former glory, the city should prohibit skateboarding there and instead allow skateboarders to use an area in Monroe Park. At Central Plaza, skateboard users are about the only people one sees now, and litter and defaced property have made the plaza unattractive. In a recent survey of downtown merchants, the majority supported a prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza. Clearly, banning skateboarding in Central Plaza will make the area a place where people can congregate for fun or for relaxation."

原文:

In this argument the writer recommended prohibiting skateboarding in Central Plaza in order to return the plaza to its former glory. From the statistics about a survey of downtown merchants and the fact that skateboarding is the only activities in the plaza now, the writer deduced that it is skateboard users who should hold responsible to the unattractive plaza. The writer's claim seems obvious at first glance. However, with careful scrutiny of this argument, I found several logical flaws making this argument unpersuasive at all.

Firstly, the writer fails to point out other alternative explanations to the plaza's situation. Was the skateboarding the cause of the unattractive plaza or people choose to play skateboard in the plaza only because few people come to this plaza for fun or for relaxation? Chances are that the plaza is unattractive for some other reasons (for example, decreased shops and entertainment places, or worsen environment), and thus this depopulated place is only fit for sports, and subsequently more and more skateboard users choose the plaza for playing. If this is the matter, then banning skateboarding means nothing but losing the last people in the Central Plaza.

Another problem of this argument is that the reliability of the survey is open to doubt. In all likelihood, the survey only concerns about downtown merchants, and if the participators are not typical, then the result of survey is just applied to these individuals. To make the survey a sound one, ranges of people involved should be broader and the population must be large enough. Besides, if the survey is just about whether one agree or disagree to prohibit skateboarding in the plaza, the responders would be conducted to choose the expected answer even if they have no idea about the effect of skateboarding, since they would be likely to recognize a subtle presumption that skateboarding is just the cause of plaza’s problem. If so, the writer’s statement depending on this survey will be undermined. In this case, perhaps a survey about general questions, such as "the reason why they do not go to Central Plaza" or " the reason why Central Plaza became unattractive", will do better to writer's conclusion.

The writer's suggestion that people use Monroe Park to play skateboard is also questionable. No evidence provided to support Monroe Park is fit for skateboarding. Either a lake in this park or bad terrain in this park will make Skateboarding a dangerous activities in this area. Furthermore, if skateboarding do strong damage to a place for fun or for relaxation, as writer presumed, then the choice of Monroe Park would probably stop the park functioning--as we all know, park is also a place for fun and relaxation.
Finally, even if the skateboarding is just the reason of unattractive plaza, other plan, such as a finite area in plaza only for skateboarding, will work in this problem and avoid conflict with skateboard users as well. Before ruling out there being other better solutions, the writer can not allege prohibiting is necessary.

To summarize, the argument is unconvinced as discussed above. What is needed in this case is a study about true reason why few people come to the Central Plaza, and cogent evidence about the relationship between decreased person to Central Plaza and skateboarding. After all, with a hasty conclusion, it is likely that the actions of prohibiting will not only deprive the recreation of skateboard users, but also will do little to promote Central Plaza glory as former.



修改:

In this argument the writer recommended prohibiting skateboarding in Central Plaza in order to return the plaza to its former glory. From the statistics about a survey of downtown merchants and the fact that skateboarding is the only activities in the plaza now, the writer deduced注意，作者并没有明说是su们干的，所以用imply更合适，下文中最好还能说明是怎么看出作者的implication的 that it is skateboard users who should hold responsible to 用得不好，和森林大火一样的错误记得？hold responsibility for plaza’s unattractive situation或者plaza’s unattractiveness. The writer's claim seems obvious还是搭配错误！claim 显而易见？应该是claim合理 reasonable at first glance. However, with more careful scrutiny of this argument, I found several logical flaws making this argument unpersuasive at all.虽然语法上可以，但是个人意见建议使用不含第一人称的论点。 Several logical flaws make the argument unpersuasive at all.

Firstly, the writer fails和上面的时态照应failed to point out other alternative explanations to the plaza's situation. [Was the skateboarding the cause of 一样的，不说了or people choose to play skateboard in the plaza only because few people come to this plaza for fun or for relaxation?] 好好的一句精彩的逻辑被表述的拗口难懂，丧失了本应有的力度。改一句你看看行不行：On the fact that only skateboarders can be seen on the plaza, a possible question lies: Did the skateboarders’ appearance in the plaza result in or result from the plaza’s desolation? Chances are that the plaza is unattractive for some other reasons (for example, decreased shops and entertainment places, or worsen environment), and thus this depopulated place is only fit for sports, and subsequently more and more skateboard users choose the plaza for playing. If this is the matter, then banning skateboarding means nothing but losing the last people in the Central Plaza. 这段论述的逻辑很清楚，反例也很清楚，不错。但如第一段所述，严格的讲这个错误是个implication，本不能按照deduction的方式来批判，而应该把段落立在：“作者举出损坏公物的例子，并做出了滑板者损坏公物的暗示，来证明滑板应该被禁止。但是其中的必然性/推理的正确性值得质疑。”而不是“作者遗漏了其他的可能原因。”这是个赤裸裸的栽赃。^_^

Another problem of this argument is that the reliability of the survey is open to doubt. In all likelihood, the survey only concerns about downtown merchants,[merchants为什么会nontypical，有说明就不那么泛泛，而且从nontypical的原因很有可能得到不公正回答的动机！此题里merchants和skateboarders有没有利益冲突？如果能找出来论证就完美了！] and [if the participators are not typical,  then the result of survey can just be applied to these individuals.] 先改语法错误。但是之后这一句说得也不好，翻过来，a survey that only a group of nontypical participators are concerned cannot reaches a universal conclusion. To make the survey a sound one, ranges of people involved should be broader and the population must be large enough. Besides, if the survey is just about whether one agree or disagree to prohibit skateboarding in the plaza, the responders would be conducted to choose the expected answer even if they have no idea about the effect of skateboarding, since they would be likely to recognize a subtle presumption that skateboarding is just the cause of plaza’s problem. If so, the writer’s statement depending on this survey will be undermined. In this case, perhaps a survey about general questions, such as "the reason why they do not go to Central Plaza" or " the reason why Central Plaza became unattractive", will give better support to writer's conclusion.对倾向性调查的论述很工整。赞。

The writer's suggestion that people use Monroe Park to play skateboard is also questionable. 观点提得好，而且按照轻重，这个位置也很好。强烈赞在TS使用简单的短句。No evidence provided to support Monroe Park is fit for skateboarding. Either a lake in this park or bad terrain in this park will make Skateboarding a dangerous activities in this area. 理由好。Furthermore, if skateboarding do strong damage to a place for fun or for relaxation,和稀泥！好。 as writer presumed, then the choice of Monroe Park would probably stop the park from regularly functioning--as we all know, park is also a place for fun and relaxation.这一段写得好。

Finally, 自成逻辑之后first, second , finally 都可以试着甩掉even if the skateboarding is just the reason of unattractive plaza, other plan, such as a finite area in plaza only for skateboarding, will work in this problem and avoid conflict with skateboard users as well. Before ruling out there being other better solutions, the writer cannot allege prohibiting is necessary.这一段太短，fully development如果做不到的话……正在想对策……现在迷茫中。一种想法是罗列几个短的在一段里，或者直接丢进结尾段，可能比较危险……

To summarize, the argument is unconvinced as discussed above.听起来好别扭 the argument is unconvinced due to the fallacies discussed above.怎么样？ What is needed in this case is a study about true reason main reason比较科学 why few people come to the Central Plaza, and cogent evidence about the relationship between decreased person to Central Plaza and skateboarding. After all, with a hasty conclusion, it is likely that the actions of prohibiting will not only deprive the recreation of skateboard users, but also will do little to promote Central Plaza glory as former. 是否要在结尾处提出改进的方案也是under consideration的一点，但是似乎没有太详细的必要。


[ 本帖最后由 njuzhshao 于 2007-7-25 11:04 编辑 ]