ARGUMENT153 Toheart (cavana)有拍必回

cavanaUID: 2178782

TOPIC: ARGUMENT 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 have 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."
WORDS: 383        TIME: 0:40:00          DATE: 2006-2-16

The arguer's view seems to be sound and convincing at first glance that television viewers should demands that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta. However, I am afraid that his argument can hardly bear further consideration since there are several flaws.

First, the increase of the crime committed by teenagers mentioned above only happens in the country of Alta, but the violence programs on television show all the nation. So it is skeptical that the reasons for the steadily increase of teenager crime in Altas are actually irresponsibility of these teenagers' parents, not the television shows. And the arguer assert that 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.

Second ,the arguer fails to offer an exact proof to convince us the amount of violence show during prime time are as great as the number he mentions to cause these children to display violent behavior. On the other side, children who display violent behaviors within their home environment maybe just play their childish games. It does not make sense that they are probably to be teenager criminals.

Third, the 90 percent of the respondents are parents, and they indicated that prime time television programs that are shown between 7 pm and 9pm should show less violence. The data is still skeptical, whether these responders are representative, and the reasons for they think the violent show should be decrease are still unknown. Whether they advocate that for they don not like the violent shows themselves ultimately, or for they want to avoid their children to watch such violent shows.

Fourth, whether decrease the violent shows during prime time will help to lower the rate of teenage crime? Whether it is the crucial avenue? Or to strengthen the education to teenagers and to instruct them directly are more effective to acknowledge them that the violence is perilous.

After pointing out so many obvious flaws in the argument, now we can say that the reasons used to support the conclusion cannot be relied on. More detailed survey and other important issues should be taken into account.

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-2-16 12:23 编辑 ]

blackdukeUID: 2154534

第一段没有引述原文作者证明其观点的例子，最好吧开头格式改为：the author claims that ...
tu substantiate the claimation, he or she cites the survey that...In addition, he or she also cites that .....A careful examine of the augument will reveal how foundless it is.
第二段开始的论述基本问题不大，但是有几个攻击点有待商榷
country在这里应该是国家的意思，因此把它理解为乡下的意思来攻击不太合适，个人以为这里可以攻击“concurrence",即电视机的引入和青少年犯罪率的上升同时发生并不表示前者构成后者的原因。
第三段的攻击点也不太好，其实可以攻击“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. ”这个论据，这是个明显的“information too vague"可以说这个调查没有说明样本有多大，谁，什么时候，在哪里调查出这个结果，如果没有这些信息，这么一个调查结果不具有可信性。这样攻击理由也好写一些。
第三第四段的攻击点比较合适
最后一段不仅要重新表明自己的观点，还要提出改进意见。比如可以说原文作者应指出到底那个全国性的调查是怎么进行的，调查了多少人。以及作者要给出信息证明第二个调查中的回应者人数足够多，是在全国每一个地方进行的，具有代表性。总之，最后一段不仅要重新说明原文是错误的，还要给出改进意见，这样就比较完备了。
以上意见是我自己的一些看法，

cavanaUID: 2178782

不好意思 我刚看到

cavanaUID: 2178782

第二段开始的论述基本问题不大，但是有几个攻击点有待商榷
country在这里应该是国家的意思，因此把它理解为乡下的意思来攻击不太合适，个人以为这里可以攻击“concurrence",即电视机的引入和青少年犯罪率的上升同时发生并不表示前者构成后者的原因。

这个不错！