Argument238【challenge yourself】第三次作业by linyunf

linyunfUID: 2405027

1宵禁是否真正解决了这期间的犯罪？其他时间呢？广场的问题不能表明其他地方
2宵禁与亲少年犯罪的关系如何？
3这个地方的请况适合宵禁么？有没有对症下药啊


In the argument, the arguer suggests that the town of Dalton should adopt the same kind of curfew-keeping young people at home late at night-in the neighboring town of Williamsville to control juvenile delinquency and protect minors from becoming victims of crime as the method was proved effective based on the author’s comparisons. After careful scrutiny, I found these comparisons cannot lend firm support to the effectiveness of the act and the adoption of another city’s means to reduce crime is not fully justified.

In the first place, the arguer reveals that after making it illegal for persons under the age of 18 to loiter or idle in public places after 10 p.m in Williamsville the youth crime dropped by 27 percent during curfew time. But the author fails to provide other comparisons which may not be favor of the effect. For example, youth crime of other time may still be unchanged or even in the trend of rising. Or perhaps crimes committed by adults remained to be serious. The arguer also cites the fact that 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. Similarly, the author has not told the information in other places which may also be the same as before. So the effectiveness of the action needs more information about what really has changed in the town of Williamsville to be proved.

In the second place, the arguer overestimates the relationship between the crimes and youths idling outside at night and overlooks other causes that actually lead the increasing crime incidences in Dalton. It is possible that not the allowance of loitering at night that directly brought out crimes, but the lack of education, concern form their parents, or regulations. In such cases, the act can only reduce the crimes seemingly, but does nothing to prevent the whole delinquency and to protect the other people.

In the third place, the arguer rests on the unwarranted assumption that a similar curfew would be effective in Dalton. Dalton’s crimes may largely be committed by adults rather than youths. Or the activities of Dalton that attract young people during night are much less than that of Williamsville. Either will undermine the effect of the curfew.

To sum up, the editorial doesn’t provide enough evidences that will prove that the curfew really reduced the overall crimes and protected the other people. To better the argument, the author needs to reveal such evidences and proves that the situations in the two cities are similar.

tangreihanUID: 2499991

In the argument, the arguer suggests that the town of Dalton should adopt the same kind of curfew-keeping young people at home late at night-in the neighboring town of Williamsville to control juvenile delinquency and protect minors from becoming victims of crime as the method was proved effective based on the author’s comparisons. After careful scrutiny, I found these comparisons cannot lend firm support to the effectiveness of the act and the adoption of another city’s means to reduce crime is not fully justified。

In the first place, the arguer reveals that after making it illegal for persons under the age of 18 to loiter or idle in public places after 10 p.m in Williamsville the youth crime dropped by 27 percent during curfew time. But the author fails to provide other comparisons which may not be favor of the effect. For example, youth crime of other time may still be unchanged or even in the trend of rising. Or perhaps crimes committed by adults remained to be serious. The arguer also cites the fact that 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. Similarly, the author has not told(provided )the information in other places which may also be the same as before. So the effectiveness of the action needs more information about what really has changed in the town of Williamsville to be proved.

In the second place, the arguer overestimates the relationship between the crimes and youths idling outside at night and overlooks other causes that actually lead the increasing crime incidences in Dalton. It is possible that not the allowance of loitering at night that directly brought out crimes, but the lack of education, concern form their parents, or regulations. In such cases, the act can only reduce the crimes seemingly, but does nothing to prevent the whole delinquency and to protect the other people.

In the third place, the arguer rests on the unwarranted assumption that a similar curfew would be effective in Dalton. Dalton’s crimes may largely be committed by adults rather than youths. Or(perhaps) the activities of Dalton that attract young people during night are much less than that of Williamsville. Either will undermine the effect of the curfew.

To sum up, the editorial doesn’t provide enough evidences that will prove that the curfew really reduced the overall crimes and protected the other people. To better the argument, the author needs to reveal such evidences and proves that the situations in the two cities are similar.

（语言简练有效，逻辑清晰，说理明白）

tongdawpUID: 2500696

In the argument, the arguer suggests that the town of Dalton should adopt the same kind of curfew-keeping young people at home late at night-in the neighboring town of Williamsville to control juvenile delinquency and protect minors from becoming victims of crime as the method was proved effective based on the author’s comparisons. After careful scrutiny, I found these comparisons cannot lend firm support to the effectiveness of the act and the adoption of another city’s means to reduce crime is not fully justified.In the first place, the arguer reveals that after making it illegal for persons under the age of 18 to loiter or idle in public places after 10 p.m in Williamsville the youth crime dropped by 27 percent during curfew time. But the author fails to provide other comparisons which may not be favor of the effect. For example, youth crime of other time may still be unchanged or even in the trend of rising. Or perhaps crimes committed by adults remained to be serious. The arguer also cites the fact that 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. Similarly, the author has not told the information in other places which may also be the same as before. So the effectiveness of the action needs more information about what really has changed in the town of Williamsville to be proved.（为什么不分成两段写呢？）In the second place, the arguer overestimates the relationship between the crimes and youths idling outside at night and overlooks other causes that actually lead the increasing crime incidences in Dalton. It is possible that not the allowance of loitering at night that directly brought out crimes, but the lack of education, concern form their parents, or regulations. In such cases, the act can only reduce the crimes seemingly, but does nothing to prevent the whole delinquency and to protect the other people. In the third place, the arguer rests on the unwarranted assumption that a similar curfew would be effective in Dalton. Dalton’s crimes may largely be committed by adults rather than youths. Or the activities of Dalton that attract young people during night are much less than that of Williamsville. Either will undermine the effect of the curfew. （这段的论证不充分）To sum up, the editorial doesn’t provide enough（一般用sufficient，建议这两个词表达的意思是不同的） evidences that will prove that the curfew really reduced the overall crimes and protected the other people. To better the argument, the author needs to reveal such evidences and proves that the situations in the two cities are similar.

语言很好，结构很严密，但是每个论证都不是很充分，而且论证的语言有点简单，最好多使用一些复杂的句式来论证，这样显得比较logical.