Argument216【0806G-Sunbird小组】第3次作业

demonXhunterUID: 2420492

ARGUMENT216 - The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement.

"Because of its spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate, Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire. As a bonus, housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Nevertheless, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. Retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average."
提纲：
1.房价降低不一定会使CV具有更强竞争力， 1）可能房价本来就很高，降低了还是非常高。2）可能别的退休地区房价降低更快。3)有些人可能不在乎房价
2.市长的保证1）恰好说明现在那些设施都很差2）市长的保证不一定能兑现
3.医疗保障 1）在未来的几年会变好不等于现在，人们不一定都能等 2）即使能等，医疗人员的总数目不一定代表医疗水平，可能CV的医疗机构很多，平均下来每个医疗机构的医疗水平不高，3)医疗水平还与医疗器械等有关

The arguer recommends that Clearview should be the best choice for any retirees to live in because of its natural beauty, consistent climate, fallen costs, lower real estate taxes, and mayor's promise to improve schools, streets, and public services. Also, the arguer claims that retirees in Clearview can expect excellent health care in the future. I found this article problematic in several aspects.

First of all, the arguer’s recommendation depends on an assumption that the declined housing costs indicate the attraction of Clearview’s lower housing costs. However, the assumption is inconvincible for three reasons. First, the variation of housing costs does not indicate the value of the prices. Perhaps, although Clearview’s housing cost declined considerably in the last year, the value of the housing costs this year remain one of the most highest over the country. Secondly, absent of any comparison with other places to retire, such assumption is not persuasible either. It is possible that housing costs of other places for retirees have a faster decline than it has in Clearview. Thirdly, granting that Clearview’s housing costs are lower, the arguer fails to provide any support that people who are seeking a place to retire care about its housing costs. As all I know, some wealthy individuals may not take into account housing costs.

The mayor’s promise is also unreliable in to respects. On the one hand, in fact, the mayor promise to improve above equipments indicated the weakness of them. If any equipment in Clearview such as schools, streets, and public services are developed enough, the mayor has not to make such promise. On the other hand, without any evidence to prove that mayor has the ability to accomplish it, I can not be convinced by the mere promise.

Moreover, the arguer try to justify Clearview’s health care level will be excellent. However, senior individuals who tend to retire may not move to Clearview and wait there for a groundless benefit. Granting that some aged people were attracted by this potential bonus, even if Clearview have a larger number of physicians, the per capita number might be relatively low. Besides, the quantity of physicians is not the only measure of the health care level. There are many other measures such as skills and experience of physicians, medical apparatus and instruments, the policy of medical care as well.

In conclusion, the arguer’s article is weakened by a pile of poorly supported arguments. To strengthen it the arguer should provide more evidence to justify mayor’s promise and Clearview’s potential bonus Also the reasoning needs more details about retirees’ economic position and other conditions to show their tendency about choosing places to retire. The more details provided, the more reasonable it is.

[ 本帖最后由 demonXhunter 于 2007-11-26 22:25 编辑 ]