Arguement153 kito，来互拍，谢谢啦

leedgenUID: 160823

153 The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper.
'Ever since the 1950's, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of Alta has steadily increased. This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television—programs that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.—should show less violence. Therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time.'


提纲：
作者认为电视上的暴力节目导致了现实生活中teenagers的越来越多的暴力行为，因此观众应该要求在黄金时间减少暴力节目的数量。

1．没有任何证据说明现实生活中teenagers的暴力行为是电视节目所导致的，作者错误地将两个同时发生的现象看成了因果关系。有可能那些看暴力内容的节目的teenagers本身就有暴力倾向，而那些不看这些节目的人本身就没有这种倾向，所以我们根本无法知道是否是因为看了暴力内容的节目才表现出暴力行为，还是因为有暴力倾向才看那些节目的。

2．另外作者还用一个调查来说明大部分观众（家长们）表示黄金时间应该减少暴力内容的节目，而这个调查is open to doubt。首先，有多少人参加了调查，如果采样小的话就不具有代表性；他们为什么希望黄金时间少播放暴力内容的节目，可能他们只是想在那个时间看些娱乐或者新闻什么的，而并不是出于为了让他们的孩子少看这类节目。

3．作者过于天真地认为在黄金时间减少暴力内容的节目就能达到减少青少年的犯罪率。即使在黄金时间减少了这些节目，那么其它时间呢？是不是就可以播放许多暴力内容的节目呢？teenager难道只是在这段时间看电视吗？减少青少年的犯罪率更主要的是需要加强这方面的教育和社会良好环境的建立。

The argument is not cogent because it assumes that violence on television lead to teenagers' violent behavior so that the television viewers should demand of the reduction in the amount of violence shown during prime time. Nevertheless, the studies and the survey, which are the basis of this argument, are questionable and unconvincing.

The first vital flaw is that the arguer unfairly assumes that the mere fact that the increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television establishes a causal relationship between them. However, no concrete evidence is provided to support that this is the case. It is very possible that it is because those teenagers have violent behaviors even before they watch lots of violence shown on television, not that they become to appear violent after they watch those television featuring violent scenes. Thus the survey is problematic which fails to provide such critical information concerning the behavior of teenagers before and after they watch violence shown on television. Also in that case, it is impossible to reach the conclusion that the increase in violence shown on television should be responsible for the increase in teenage crimes.

In addition, the survey, one of the bases of the editorial's suggestion, is open to doubt. How many people are involved in this survey? Is the total number sufficient to reflect the general views of parents and make the result statistically reliable? Without such evidence, the conclusion which results from this questionable survey would be highly suspected. Furthermore, why do those respondents assert that prime time television should show less violence? Do they intent to make their children watch less such television? We have no ideas about that, but it is most likely that they just want to watch some funny entertainment programs or news during that time.

Finally, it is presumptuous for the arguer to claim that the reduction in the amount of violence shown during prime time will help to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta. On the one hand, even if the amount of violence shown during this period is reduced, what about other time? There is no guarantee that teenagers watch television only during prime time. Maybe they can watch such programs on other time, such as at midnight or during the day time. On the other hand, the arguer fails to take into account the key methods to lower the rate of teenage crime, like strengthening moral education and cultivating a good environment for teenagers.

On balance, the editorial's suggestion to reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time is not persuasive for the reason that the basis of it, the studies and the survey, need more solid evidence to prove its validity.

智恩UID: 2160717

seat taken!

智恩UID: 2160717

提纲：
作者认为电视上的暴力节目导致了现实生活中teenagers的越来越多的暴力行为，因此观众应该要求在黄金时间减少暴力节目的数量。

1．没有任何证据说明现实生活中teenagers的暴力行为是电视节目所导致的，作者错误地将两个同时发生的现象看成了因果关系。有可能那些看暴力内容的节目的teenagers本身就有暴力倾向，而那些不看这些节目的人本身就没有这种倾向，所以我们根本无法知道是否是因为看了暴力内容的节目才表现出暴力行为，还是因为有暴力倾向才看那些节目的。

2．另外作者还用一个调查来说明大部分观众（家长们）表示黄金时间应该减少暴力内容的节目，而这个调查is open to doubt。首先，有多少人参加了调查，如果采样小的话就不具有代表性；他们为什么希望黄金时间少播放暴力内容的节目，可能他们只是想在那个时间看些娱乐或者新闻什么的，而并不是出于为了让他们的孩子少看这类节目。

3．作者过于天真地认为在黄金时间减少暴力内容的节目就能达到减少青少年的犯罪率。即使在黄金时间减少了这些节目，那么其它时间呢？是不是就可以播放许多暴力内容的节目呢？teenager难道只是在这段时间看电视吗？减少青少年的犯罪率更主要的是需要加强这方面的教育和社会良好环境的建立。   【提纲让人一目了然啊】

The argument is not cogent because it assumes that violence on television lead to teenagers' violent behavior so that the television viewers should demand of the reduction in the amount of violence shown during prime time. Nevertheless, the studies and the survey, which are the basis of this argument, are questionable and unconvincing.

The first vital flaw is that the arguer unfairly assumes that the mere fact that the increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television establishes a causal relationship between them. However, no concrete evidence is provided to support that this is the case. It is very possible that it is because those teenagers have violent behaviors even before they watch lots of violence shown on television, not that they become to appear violent after they watch those television featuring violent scenes. 【这句话好长啊，可不可以这样说啊：Perhaps some teenagers have inherent violent tendency whatever they watch violent scenes or not】 Thus the survey is problematic which fails to provide such critical information concerning the behavior of teenagers before and after they watch violence shown on television. Also in that case, it is impossible to reach the conclusion that the increase in violence shown on television should be responsible for the increase in teenage crimes.

In addition, the survey, one of the bases of the editorial's suggestion, is open to doubt. How many people are involved in this survey? Is the total number sufficient to reflect the general views of parents and make the result statistically reliable? Without such evidence, the conclusion which results from this questionable survey would be highly suspected. Furthermore, why do those respondents assert that prime time television should show less violence? Do they 【加个really吧】intent to make their children watch less such television? We have no ideas 【可能information要好些】about that, but it is most likely that they just want to watch some funny entertainment programs or news during that time. 【不过我在想如果他们家里有2个电视的话，就不存和teenagers 争电视的假设了】

Finally, it is presumptuous for the arguer to claim that the reduction in the amount of violence shown during prime time will help to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta. On the one hand, even if the amount of violence shown during this period is reduced, what about other time? There is no guarantee that teenagers watch television only during prime time. Maybe they can watch such programs on other time, such as at midnight or during the day time. On the other hand, the arguer fails to take into account the key methods to lower the rate of teenage crime, like strengthening moral education and cultivating a good environment for teenagers.

On balance【好短语，赞！】, the editorial's suggestion to reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time is not persuasive for the reason that the basis of it, the studies and the survey, need more solid evidence to prove its validity.

总的写的不错的，开头结尾都很简洁有力，论证也清楚，没太大的问题，坚持吧