Argument214 <Chasing For "6" Score 小组第一次作业>

emilyynUID: 2258368

Argument214
“In each city in the region of Treehaven, the majority of the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region’s cities differ, however, in the value they place on public education. For example, Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. It seems clear, therefore, that Parson City residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents.”

提纲
1、  作者犯了两个错误，一是没有考虑清楚问题的多面性，二是没有提供充分的证据说明
2、  对教育的关切不仅仅是从它的资金投入来看出的，作者忽略了一些别的问题，比如纳税是每个公民的义务,如果他们不交纳的话,那么就会触犯法律;学生的多少也是对于教育费用的很重要的原因
3、  虽然Parson City 对于教育的预算是Blue City 的两倍，但是如果Parson City的居民都比较富有，收入至少是Blue City的两倍的话，那么对于教育的投入在资金方面就至少是与Blue City是一样多的，因此作者过于武断，没有调查清楚，没有充分的论据说明P比B更注重教育。
4、  总结，如果作者能够将两个城市的情况都考虑清楚，不仅仅凭借预算的多少来讨论，那么问题就会清楚地多


1、  There are several critical fallacies.
2、  The arguer fails to take into account some other relevant factors. Such as pay for the tax are the obligation to the residents they may not really care about the education, the number of students in the school are different.
3、  There is no guarantee that Parson City’s residents care more about public school education than do Blue City residents. The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. If the salary the Parson City’s residents gain twice as much money as the Blue City’s residents gain, the money Parson City residents pay is just the same as the Blue City residents’ .


In this argument, the arguer concludes that although the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects, different city have different emphasis on the education. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that Parson City has the same number of residents as Blue city, but Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public schools. That means the residents in Parson City are more care about the public education. It is the evidence to prove that the cities’ different care about the education. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First, the arguer fails to take into account some other relevant factors. Spending on the education can not support the arguer’s conclusion. Other relevant factors must be considered. For example, the tax using on education is just the government’s duty not residents’, the resident just pay for the tax, like Parson City’s residents., it is their obligation, but actually not their wishes. If they don’t pay for it , they’ll be punished by the law. So that they just pay but not care about it. On the other side, the Blue City’s residents may really care about the education, they pay for it and do some other things to support education. So the arguer’s analysis turned out to be not conscientiously and carefully. Besides, the total number of students in public schools must be considered. There maybe twice more students in the public schools in Parson City, no doubt, the money spend on education in Parson City much more than Blue City.

Second, there is no guarantee that Parson City’s residents care more about public school education than Blue City residents. The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. It is less of evidence. Arguer just point out that the money they spend on the education, but if the salary  Parson City’s residents gain twice more than the Blue City’s residents gain, the money Parson City residents pay is just the same as the Blue City residents’. So that this evidence turned out to be ineffective.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence that the two cities have not only the same residents but also other same relevant factors. So that the evidence can support the point of view sufficiently.

赶在deadline最后一分钟交上作业呵呵!

halloween31UID: 2291335

占个位置,我来改

halloween31UID: 2291335

In this argument, the arguer concludes that although the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects, different city have(has）different emphasis on the(没the) education. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that Parson City has the same number of residents as Blue city, but Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public schools. That means the residents in Parson City are more care about the public education. It is the evidence to prove that the cities’ different care about the education. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies. (这段有点罗嗦，可以把题目简化一下只提出主要的就行)

First, the arguer fails to take into account some other relevant factors. Spending on the education can not support the arguer’s conclusion. (???想说的是花费更多并不支持观点？)Other relevant factors must be considered. For example, the tax [using (being used)] on education is just the government’s duty not residents’, the resident just pay for the tax (pay their taxes), like Parson City’s residents, it is their obligation, but actually not their wishes. If they don’t pay for it, they’ll be punished by the law. [继续论述一下用多少纳税的钱去支持教育由政府掌控而不是民众会不会更有说服力？]So that they just pay but not care about it. On the other side, the Blue City’s residents may really care about the education, they pay for it and do some other things to support education. So the arguer’s analysis turned out to be not conscientiously and carefully. Besides, the total number of students in public schools must be considered. There maybe twice more students in the public schools in Parson City, no doubt, the moneyspend (spent)on education in Parson City [is] much more than Blue City.

Second, there is no guarantee that Parson City’s residents care more about public school education than Blue City residents. The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. It is less of evidence. Arguer just point out that the money they spend on the education, but if the salary  Parson City’s residents gain [is] twice more than the Blue City’s residents gain, the money Parson City residents pay is just the same as the Blue City residents’. So that this evidence turned out to be ineffective (??? become ineffective).

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidences that the two cities have not only the same residents but also other same relevant factors(这句好！) So that the evidence can support the point of view sufficiently.




[ 本帖最后由 halloween31 于 2007-2-2 23:31 编辑 ]