Argument205 Kito组，帮忙看看吧，谢谢

leedgenUID: 160823

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."

提纲：
1．B市破坏公物的行为减少可能并不是因为安装了高照度灯光
2．即使承认高照度灯光有一定作用，A市是否要全市安装呢？
3．最后，即使犯罪率降低了，我们就能给邻里关系带来新气象吗？

This recommendation is easily arguable because there is no sufficient evidence to prove that it is high intensity lighting that brings about the declined vandalism in Belleville. Further, it is presumptuous to install such lighting throughout Amburg to combat crime effectively as Belleville did. Also we have to analysis what causes the declining neighborhoods before accepting such suggestion.

To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes that the declined vandalism in Belleville is due to high intensity lighting. No solid information is provided to illustrate that this is the case. It is entirely possible that during that period fewer people went out due to the awful weather so that vandalism then declined. And it is also likely that Belleville put much emphasis on advertisement and education with regard to protecting those public or private facilities, which have already shown their beneficial effects. Also, much more policemen/policewomen are patrolling on the street in Belleville, stopping those willful destructions. Hence, the conclusion that high intensity lighting is the most effective way to reduce crime is problematic and questionable.

Even if one concedes that high intensity lighting has a good effect in stopping vandalism, one must consider whether it would be effective in Amburg. These two cities might have their own particular situations, such as diverse life styles. Also, one must take into account the corresponding facets after installing high intensity lighting throughout Amburg. The high intensity lighting might give rise to the huge waste of electricity and the other worse impact might be that the intense light influences the regular rest of local residents which will cause the great dissatisfied moods of them. Apparently the arguer fails to recognize such potential aftermaths. Furthermore, granted that vandalism is declined, how about other serious crimes, like robbery, stealing or killing? There is no guarantee that the rate of crime will be reduces by installing high intensity lighting.

Finally, the arguer does not recognize other essential issues concerning the declined neighborhoods. Simply by reducing crime, can the declined neighborhoods be revitalized? We have no reason to believe that the declined neighborhoods can be revived in this way. Such factors as busy work, the distrust between people and so forth are responsible for the kind of phenomena. Without solving these issues, it is difficult to revitalize the declined neighborhoods.

On balance, this argument suffers from several vital fallacies as analyzed above. More concrete information is needed to substantiate that high intensity lighting is the effective way to reduce crime and to revitalize the declined neighborhoods.


谢谢大家看看