Argument73，留链回拍！

wolfgangUID: 2113851

Argument73

第一篇ARGU,请帮忙拍砖～谢谢啦！
Outline:
Paragraph 1:复述原结论以及简要复述论证过程，指出它是不可靠的，因为它犯了片面分析，模糊数据以及违背逻辑的假设等诸多错误；
Paragaph 2:攻击论据：论据没有考虑到Mohilia的私人汽车普及情况，因此，短暂出现租车人超过买车人的情况并非由租车更受欢迎导致的。
Paragraph 3:攻击论据：即使在Mohilia私人拥有汽车还不普及，论据的数据也过于模糊。它没有考虑到两种消费者的可能的重叠，以及每个消费者购买量和租车数量。
Paragraph 4:攻击论证：平均使用时间5年这个假设是没有根据，也是不合逻辑的;
Paragraph 5:总结，重述，阐述危害和解决方法。
Response:

The arguer draws the conclusion that they should change the focus of their business from selling cars to leasing them. This conclusion seems at first glance meaningful, but is actually open to doubt because of potential weakness of incomplete analysis, vague data, and some illogical assumptions.

The arguer cited the records of the past five years when each year, the number of people leasing new cars surpassed the number of leasing them, but such records is too incomplete to be credible. It is known to all that in an area where private cars have been quite prevailing and most people have at least one car, and what’s more, because the car can normally be used for a period, it is doubtless that fewer people will keep purchasing new cars, the number of which is inevitably less than the ones leasing cars because they may be originally minority that are not car-owners. In this occasion, although the number of people leasing cars may temporarily surpasses that of purchasing cars, the potential car-buyers may be surprisingly large, especially when their cars begin to be worn out. Due to the lack of background analysis and relevant information, the statistics are open to doubt, and fails to support the final examination.

Besides, even if Mohilia is an area where private car is not commonplace, the statistic data are also vague in that the arguer neglects the possible overlapping of the people leasing cars and the ones purchasing cars, and the quantity of purchasing and leasing. In the formal case, if the two categories of the consumer overlap seriously, the large number of people leasing cars on the contrary indicates the proportionally large number of people buying new cars. In the latter case, the possibility cannot be excluded that the certain inhabitants of Mohilia are so rich that they can usually purchase more than ten cars, while even though most of the inhabitants resort to leasing them instead of purchase, but because of leasing in small quantities, more cars are finally sold rather than leased. If the arguer could provided a more accurate picture about the consumption behavior of the inhabitants, especially some statistical number on the incomes rather than on quantities of consumers, the result would be much more interesting. After all, the defective evidence strongly weakens the credibility and feasibility of the conclusion.

What’s more, the arguer proposed an assumption without explanation that normally, the average of cars driven in Mohilia is six years, which contradicts the normal method to define the age of cars, and turns out to be obviously illogical. As is known to all, the age of cars are usually defined by the distances of driving, mostly 100 thousand miles for average cars, and even more for some automobile with higher quality. Even if one may in lack of such knowledge, one can also realize the incredibility of such assumption just by taking two extremes into consideration: can we ever imagine the age of the two cars coincides, one owned by a person with several cars and seldom been used, and the other by an industrious taxi-driver? As such an assumption plays a vital role to draw the final conclusion, the defeat of such assumption will obviously undermine the proof of the final conclusion.

Consequently, the conclusion drawn from the above defective evidence, scanty and insufficient analysis, and some illogical propositions, is open to doubt although it seems to be well-stated in some sense. The undertaking of such proposals will probably lead to converse result. Some further market investigation and analysis are strongly recommended before the final proposal.