argument77 第38次作业(模考9) 请大家拍拍

pinuoUID: 2328081

TOPIC: ARGUMENT77 - The cities of East Sacunda and West Sacunda are in an earthquake-prone area. Since 1985 both cities have had stringent building codes requiring all new buildings to have specific features designed to prevent damage in an earthquake. Buildings built before 1985 are exempt from the codes, but many building owners have modified their buildings to make them conform to the 1985 codes. Last year a major earthquake hit the area, and many people lost their homes. The number of people who were left homeless was much higher in East Sacunda than in West Sacunda, however, so we can conclude that building owners in East Sacunda were less likely to modify their buildings so as to bring them up to the 1985 code standards.
WORDS: 406          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-9-2 17:36:24

The author,in the material, draws the conclusion that the building owners in East Sacunda might do not modify the buildings there to conform to the 1985 code standards because far more people were left homeless in a major earthquake in East Sacunda than those in  West Sacunda. The argument is problematic in several aspects, thus render is unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the author's final conclution is based a the assumption that the number of people who are homeless can reflect the number of homes involved.  This is not always true. Consider the citizens in East Sacunda like to live in a big families because of they enjoy the life with their old parents or simply out of economic consideration,  that is three generations living  in one house, constiute a 7 or more members family. While the citizens of West Sacunda prefer living seperately, generally a family has 3 or less members. Thus more people in East Sacunda than people in West Sacunda does not mean more house in East Sacunda.

In addition, even if I were to concede that the number of people can reflect the house involved, the author fails to provide the information that how much people or were homeless in both city respectively before this earthquake. It is highly possible that a large number of people in East Sacunda were homeless before the earthquake, that is their homeless condition was not directly caused by the earthquake, thus the evaluation by the number of people who are homeless is indefensible.

Finally, even the author provide the evidence the same number of people  experience the condition of homeless--perhaps no people are homeless--it is unconvincing to draw the conclusion that East Sacunda were less likely to mofify their buildings to conform to 1985 code standards. Because there might be more old buildings which vular to survive through an earthquake in East Sacunda, though they have do their best to modify as many old buildings as possible. While the condition in West Sacunda is different, the extreme example is that there is no old building in West Sacunda.

In sum, to convince me that the conlusion is reasonable, the author need provide evidence the number of people who are left homeless can reflect the number of houses are destroyed in the earthquake. And to better assess the argument, the author need present evidence that there are same number of old house in both cities.

pinuoUID: 2328081

The author, in the material, draws the conclusion that the building owners in East Sacunda might be less likely to modify the buildings there to conform to the 1985 code standards because far more people were left homeless in a major earthquake in East Sacunda than those in West Sacunda. The argument is problematic in several aspects, thus render is unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the author's final conclusion is based on the assumption that the number of people who are homeless can reflect the number of homes involved. This is not always true. Consider the citizens in East Sacunda like to live in a big families because of they enjoy the life with their old parents or simply out of economic consideration, that is three generations living in one house, constitute a 7 or more members family. While the citizens of West Sacunda prefer living separately, generally a family has 3 or less members. Thus the statement that there are more people in East Sacunda than people in West Sacunda involved does not mean accordingly more houses in East Sacunda involved.

In addition, even if I were to concede that the number of people can reflect the houses involved, the author fails to provide the information that how much people were homeless in both cities respectively before this earthquake. It is highly possible that a large number of people in East Sacunda were homeless before the earthquake. That is their homeless condition was not directly caused by the earthquake, thus the evaluation by the number of people who are homeless is indefensible.

Finally, even the author provide the evidence the same number of people  experience the condition of homeless--perhaps no people are homeless--it is unconvincing to draw the conclusion that East Sacunda were less likely to modify their buildings to conform to 1985 code standards. Because there might be more old buildings which were hard to survive through an earthquake in East Sacunda than in West Sacunda, though they have do their best to modify as many old buildings as possible. While the condition in West Sacunda is different, the extreme example is that there is no old building in West Sacunda. And even assume that both cities have same number of old buildings, it is also possible that the code in West Sacunda is stricter than the one in East Sacund. Thus the buildings in East Sacunda were easier to be destroyed in the earthquake though they have made their best to modify the old buildings.

In sum, to convince me that the conclusion is reasonable, the author need provide evidence the number of people who are left homeless can reflect the number of houses are destroyed in the earthquake. And to better assess the argument, the author need present evidence that there are same number of old house in both cities and they were conformed to same code standard.