argument231 欢迎互拍

唯美笑痴UID: 2275335

231.The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"The members of the town school board should not be reelected because they
are not concerned about promoting high-quality education in the arts in
our local schools. For example, student participation in the high school
drama club has been declining steadily, and this year the school board
refused to renew the contract of the drama director, even though he had
received many awards for his original plays. Meanwhile, over $300,000 of
the high school budget goes to athletic programs, and the head football
coach is now the highest-paid member of the teaching staff."



In this argument, the author concludes that “the members of the town school board should not be reelected because they are not concerned about promoting high-quality education in the arts in our local schools”. At first glance, the author’s reasoning seems to be sounding, while after closely scrutinize his points, we may find that it is unpersuasive, for the reason that this argument contains several facets that are questionable.

First, the precondition of the argument is unwarranted. Meanwhile, the author takes for granted that the correlation between that the members not concerned about promoting high-quality education in the arts in our local schools and that student participation in the high school drama club has been declining steadily equals to a causal relationship. The argument also fails to address other alternative explanations. I will discuss each of these loopholes one by one.

Before evaluating the evidence of the author’s argument, one must first consider how the precondition was conducted. The author assumes that the members should not be reelected only because they are not concerned about promoting high-quality education in the arts. This is nowhere more ridiculous than this. The members might make contributions to other vital fields such as moral education or constructing comfortable conditions for student. After all, art is only one after school field.

Further more, the argument assumes that the members are not concerned about promoting education in the arts because student participation in the high school drama club has been declining steadily. But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that the students that are interested in arts become less than before, or there are many tasks from other teachers to take on. Moreover, there is no relationship between that over $300,000 of the high school budget goes to athletic programs and that the members are not concerned about arts education. It might be that over $400,000 of the high school budget goes to arts programs, and do you still believe that the members are not concerned about arts education?

Finally, the argument’s author fails to rule out the alternative explanations. The refused drama director might be not good enough, even though he had received many awards for his original plays. It might also be the case that this director requires too much monetary reward.

In conclusion, the argument, which seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument can improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship—that the members do not make any positive contributions to the education of the town. It could be further improved by excluding alternative explanations for the supposed relationships.

[ 本帖最后由 唯美笑痴 于 2007-4-4 10:05 编辑 ]

zsa1983UID: 2299564

In this argument, the author concludes that “the members of the town school board should not be reelected because they are not concerned about promoting high-quality education in the arts in our local schools”. At first glance, the author’s reasoning seems to be sounding, while after closely scrutinize his points, we may find that it is unpersuasive, for the reason that this argument contains several facets that are questionable.

First, the precondition of the argument is unwarranted. Meanwhile,感觉这个连接词有点问题，分析下哈。感觉与此同时是说两件事情同时发生，这里前后好像是同一个东东吧？the author takes for granted that the correlation between that the members not concerned about promoting high-quality education in the arts in our local schools and that student participation in the high school drama club has been declining steadily equals to a causal relationship. The argument also fails to address other alternative explanations. I will discuss each of these loopholes one by one.
呵呵argument还能这么写，学习了
Before evaluating the evidence of the author’s argument, one must first consider how the precondition was conducted. The author assumes that the members should not be reelected only because they are not concerned about promoting high-quality education in the arts. This is nowhere more ridiculous than this. The members might make contributions to other vital fields such as moral education or constructing comfortable conditions for student. After all, art is only one after school field.

Further more, the argument assumes that the members are not concerned about promoting education in the arts because student participation in the high school drama club has been declining steadily. But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. In addition, the argument fails to consider the possibility that the students that are interested in arts become less than before, or there are many tasks from other teachers to take on.

Moreover, there is no relationship between that over $300,000 of the high school budget goes to athletic programs and that the members are not concerned about arts education. It might be that over $400,000 of the high school budget goes to arts programs, and do you still believe that the members are not concerned about arts education?

Finally, the argument’s author fails to rule out the alternative explanations. The refused drama director might be not good enough, even though he had received many awards for his original plays. It might also be the case that this director requires too much monetary reward. ？？？这都可以？呵呵

In conclusion, the argument, which seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument can improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a causal relationship—that the members do not make any positive contributions to the education of the town. It could be further improved by excluding alternative explanations for the supposed relationships.

不错哈，分析的比较到位，加油