argument205 【智恩】互拍

智恩UID: 2160717

205.The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of
Amburg's Chamber of Commerce.
"Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost
immediately. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime, we should install such lighting throughout Amburg. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."

正文[443]
This argument simply proposes that it is necessary to install high intensity lighting in Amburg in order to reduce crime rate. To substantiate this claim, the author quotes a case of the neighboring country Belleville. Although this argument is well-presented, the analysis is deficient in logic and not cogent.

To start off, based on the unfounded assumption that the vandalism condition between these two countries is similar, the author suggests that it is necessary to install high intensity lighting in Amburg. In fact, no evidence is provided to tell us that the vandalism is Amburg is serious. Maybe the robbery and theft are serious in Amburg. If so, the recommendation is of no use to reduce the crime rate. Even if the vandalism is serious in Amburg, the suggestion of installing high intensity lighting could not be warranted in efficiency. The author fails to consider that except the high intensity lighting installation, the Belleville carries other politics to reduce the vandalism. For example, the government of Belleville carries out new laws to control the vandalism. Moreover the social condition of two nations might be different. It is entirely possible that the social security of Amburg is worse than Belleville. The evidence the author cites that police patrols in Amburg do not decrease the rate of vandalism could illustrate the worse security of Amburg to some extent. Even assuming that the high intensity lighting installation is indeed effective in reducing the rate of vandalism, however this assumption dependent on the fact that the safe social condition and steady economic condition is tenable. If the economy is depression and the unemployment is increasing, residents might do vandalism regardless of some risks. For instance, the poor people feel the unfairness of the society and the vandalism is a way of catharsis. Therefore without taking into account of these possibilities, the author's recommendation is unconvincing.

Even if the high intensity lighting installation is the most efficient approach to resolve vandalism, the author fails to inform us that it is effective in reducing crime rate. As is known to all, the sort of crime includes robbery, theft, rape, murder, defalcation and so forth. Also common sense informs us that the simple high intensity lighting installation could not solve such many problems. The author unfairly neglects other ways to lower the crime proportion. For example, it is necessary to improve the educational quality and moral sense of residents to achieve the goal of reducing crime rate. Or the government carries out reasonable and feasible laws to lower it.

In conclusion, the author should take into account of what I mention above to do a better work of this argument.

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

This argument simply proposes that it is necessary to install high intensity lighting in Amburg in order to reduce crime rate. To substantiate this claim, the author quotes a case of the neighboring country Belleville. Although this argument is well-presented, the analysis is deficient in logic and not cogent.

To start off（赞，这个比那个to begin with好~~）, based on the unfounded assumption that the vandalism condition between these two countries is similar, the author suggests that it is necessary to install high intensity lighting in Amburg. In fact, no evidence is provided to tell us that the vandalism is （in）Amburg is serious. Maybe the robbery and theft are serious in Amburg.（嗯，这一点我跟本没想到） If so, the recommendation is of no use to reduce the crime rate.（这里是不是可以再分一段，我始终觉得这样一大段不好，批卷子的人看着肯定得心烦） Even if the vandalism is serious in Amburg, the suggestion of installing high intensity lighting could not be warranted in efficiency. The author fails to consider that except the high intensity lighting installation, the Belleville carries other politics to reduce the vandalism. For example, the government of Belleville carries out new laws to control the vandalism. （这里也是，建议再分一段）Moreover the social condition of two nations might be different. It is entirely possible that the social security of Amburg is worse than Belleville. The evidence the author cites that police patrols in Amburg do not decrease the rate of vandalism could illustrate the worse security of Amburg to some extent. （这里我有个问题，我记得PP3里边有这样的一句话是说请确保你是针对文中的观点进行批驳，而不是阐述你自己的观点，我觉得这里你提出Amburg的社会治安比Belleville差，之后又用文中的观点来支持，感觉很别扭。是不是可以这么考虑；作者关于警察巡逻无效的证据不能说明再将来也无效，也许这项措施发挥作用事需要时间的，可能那些犯罪分子不知道有这么回事呢）Even assuming that the high intensity lighting installation is indeed effective in reducing the rate of vandalism, however this assumption dependent on the fact that the safe social condition and steady economic condition is tenable. If the economy is depression and the unemployment is increasing, residents might do vandalism regardless of some risks. （这句好像也不太对，这里你要是写错误类比是不是能更清楚一点，即使这项措施在B有效，在A却不一定有效）For instance, the poor people feel the unfairness of the society and the vandalism is a way of catharsis. Therefore without taking into account of these possibilities, the author's recommendation is unconvincing.

Even if the high intensity lighting installation is the most efficient approach to resolve vandalism, the author fails to inform us that it is effective in reducing crime rate. As is known to all, the sort of crime includes robbery, theft, rape, murder, defalcation and so forth（这里好像跟上一段第一点是重复的阿）. Also common sense informs us that the simple high intensity lighting installation could not solve such many problems. The author unfairly neglects other ways to lower the crime proportion. For example, it is necessary to improve the educational quality and moral sense of residents to achieve the goal of reducing crime rate. Or the government carries out reasonable and feasible laws to lower it.

In conclusion, the author should take into account of what I mention above to do a better work of this argument.

这篇文章逻辑很混乱，智恩是之前没写提纲直接在PP3里边写的吧，我觉得还是应该之前写一下提纲的，我试过一次不写，发现逻辑很混乱。其实你之前写个提纲也没关系的，反正最后你要把Argument的题都过一遍的啊~~考的时候，其实提纲已在心中了。
加油哦~~~~
这篇我也写得很混乱，sigh~~~好好研究一下