Argument147 [Perseverance小组]第一次作业 by 执着

wchao69UID: 2209794

In this argument, the author claims that the sales of Whirlwind video games would reverse from declination to increase obviously in the next few months according to a recent survey, which suggests that the video-game players prefer games with vividly lifelike graphics, and this video-game company has just developed several such games. This argument seems to be somewhat plausible at first glance, however, a close scrutiny reveals that it omits some significant concerns that should be addressed to sub stantiate the argument.
First and foremost of all, this argument commits a fallacy of "causal oversimplification" in assuming that lifelike graphics is all that is required for increasing the sales of the video games. While the survey suggests that most video-game players believe the effect of graphics is the most important feature in a video game, it hardly means that only by providing games with high effect graphics would increase the sales. One compelling reason is that the arguer tells us that life-like graphics require the most up-to-date computers, so there is a possibility/ it is entirely possible that most of the video-game players can not afford the computers or they don't have a computer good enough to run the video games fluently, thus,they would not buy such video games.
Secondly, to estiblish a general casual relationship between increasing the sales amount and the effect of graphics, other factors that could result in increasing sales should be considered and eliminated. For example, the content or the drama of the games, the ways of operation, the style of the game, the effect of sounds and so forth would influce the sales of the games. The author's failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for the sales of the games renders the conclusion upon it highly suspect.
Finally, even if I were to concede that the most of the video-game players have up-to-date computer to run such games and they like their games very much, the arguer still commits a fallacy of "One-Sidedness" since he/she fails to consider the the cost of developping such games. The vividly life-like video games may cost a lot to develop, and the company has to  make some advertisement, which would increase the cost. And the price would be high, for which the video-game players would flinch.Considering the whole, since the argument lacks a complete analysis of the situation, the auguer's recommendation is not convincingly.
In conclusion, the arguer fails to validate the conclusion that the sales of Whirlwind video would increase just because they has developed several games with dramatic grafphics, which video-game players like due to a survey.The arguer should provide more concrete evidence to demonstrate that most people can afford such games. In addition, the arguer should have to rule out the abovementioned possibiliies that would determine the arguer's claim.

manfenkikiUID: 2328047

In this argument, the author claims that the sales of Whirlwind video games would reverse from declination to increase obviously in the next few months according to a recent survey, which suggests that the video-game players prefer games with vividly lifelike graphics, and this video-game company has just developed several such games. This argument seems to be somewhat plausible at first glance, however, a close scrutiny reveals that it omits some significant concerns that should be addressed to sub stantiate the argument.
First and foremost of all（这个of all 是不是可以不要啊？一般的说法都是first and foremost吧）, this argument commits a fallacy of "causal oversimplification" in assuming that lifelike graphics is all that is required for increasing the sales of the video games. While the survey suggests that most video-game players believe the effect of graphics is the most important feature in a video game, it hardly means that only by providing games with high effect graphics would increase the sales. One compelling reason is that the arguer tells us that life-like graphics require the most up-to-date computers, so there is a possibility/ it is entirely possible that most of the video-game players can not afford the computers or they don't have a computer good enough to run the video games fluently, thus,they would not buy such video games.
Secondly, to estiblish a general casual relationship between increasing the sales amount and the effect of graphics, other factors that could result in increasing sales should be considered and eliminated. For example, the content or the drama of the games, the ways of operation, the style of the game, the effect of sounds and so forth would influce the sales of the games. The author's failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for the sales of the games renders the conclusion upon it highly suspect.
Finally, even if I were to（有这样的结构吗？be+to?） concede that the most of the video-game players have up-to-date computer to run such games and they like their games very much, the arguer still commits a fallacy of "One-Sidedness" since he/she fails to consider the the cost of developping(developing) such games. The vividly life-like video games may cost a lot to develop, and the company has to  make some advertisements, which would increase the cost. And the price would be high(so that the price would be higher), for which the video-game players would flinch.Considering the whole, since the argument lacks a complete analysis of the situation, the auguer's recommendation is not convincingly.
In conclusion, the arguer fails to validate the conclusion that the sales of Whirlwind video would increase just because they has developed several games with dramatic grafphics, which video-game players like due to a survey.The arguer should provide more concrete evidence to demonstrate that most people can afford such games(这里没有提到价格问题,前面你说的是游戏机可以提供生动的画面而使销售额增长,后面却说消费者不能承担其价格,似乎这样前后不是一致的). In addition, the arguer should have to rule out the abovementioned possibiliies that would determine the arguer's claim.

guoxuemei205UID: 2151363

In this argument, the author claims that the sales of Whirlwind video games would reverse from declination[decline吧？] to increase obviously in the next few months according to a recent survey, which suggests that the video-game players prefer games with vividly lifelike graphics, and this video-game company has just developed several such games. This argument seems to be somewhat plausible at first glance, however, a close scrutiny reveals that it omits some significant concerns that should be addressed to sub stantiate[substantiate] the argument.
First and foremost of all, this argument commits a fallacy of "causal oversimplification" in assuming that lifelike graphics is all that is required for increasing the sales of the video games. While the survey suggests that most video-game players believe the effect of graphics is the most important feature in a video game, it hardly means that only by providing games with high effect graphics would increase the sales. One compelling reason is that the arguer tells us that life-like graphics require the most up-to-date computers, so there is a possibility/ it is entirely possible that most of the video-game players can not afford the computers or they don't have a computer good enough to run the video games fluently, thus,they would not buy such video games.
Secondly, to estiblish[establish] a general casual relationship between increasing the sales amount and the effect of graphics, other factors that could result in increasing sales should be considered and eliminated. For example, the content or the drama of the games, the ways of operation, the style of the game, the effect of sounds and so forth would influce[influence] the sales of the games. The author's failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for the sales of the games renders the conclusion upon it highly suspect.
Finally, even if I were to concede that the most of the video-game players have up-to-date computer to run such games and they like their games very much, the arguer still commits a fallacy of "One-Sidedness" since he/she fails to consider the the[多一个the] cost of developping [developing]such games. The vividly life-like video games may cost a lot to develop, and the company has to  make some advertisement, which would increase the cost. And the price would be high, for which the video-game players would flinch.Considering the whole, since the argument lacks a complete analysis of the situation, the auguer's[arguer’s] recommendation is not convincingly[convincing].
In conclusion, the arguer fails to validate the conclusion that the sales of Whirlwind video would increase just because they has developed several games with dramatic grafphics[graphics], which video-game players like due to a survey. The arguer should provide more concrete evidence to demonstrate that most people can afford such games. In addition, the arguer should have to rule out the abovementioned possibilities that would determine the arguer's claim.

[ 本帖最后由 guoxuemei205 于 2007-5-26 23:33 编辑 ]

wchao69UID: 2209794

自己修改整理了一下，感谢楼上二位的修改意见。

In this argument, the author claims that the sales of Whirlwind video games would reverse from decline to increase obviously/tremendously in the next few months according to a recent survey, which suggests that the video-game players prefer games with vividly lifelike graphics, and this video-game company has just developed several such games. This argument seems to be somewhat plausible at first glance, however, a close scrutiny reveals that it omits some significant concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.

First and foremost, this argument commits a fallacy of "causal oversimplification" in assuming that lifelike graphics is all that is required for increasing the sales of the video games. While the survey suggests that most video-game players believe the effect of graphics is the most important feature in a video game, it hardly means that only by providing games with high effect graphics thecompany could increase the sales. One compelling reason is that/to be more specific the arguer tells us that life-like graphics require the most up-to-date computers, so there is a possibility/ it is entirely possible that most of the video-game players can not afford the computers or they don't have a computer good enough to run the video games fluently, thus, they would not buy such video games.

Secondly, to establish a general casual relationship between increasing the sales amount and the effect of graphics, other factors that could result in increasing sales should be considered and not eliminated. For example, the content or the scenarios of the games, the ways of operation, the style of the game, the effect of sounds and so forth would influence the sales of the games. The author's failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for the sales of the games renders the conclusion upon it highly suspect.

Finally, even if I were to concede that the most of the video-game players have up-to-date computers to run such games and they like their games very much, the arguer still commits a fallacy of "One-Sidedness" since he/she fails to consider the cost of developing such games. The vividly life-like video games may cost a lot to develop, and the company has to make some advertisements, which would increase the cost, so that the price would be high, for which the video-game players would flinch. Considering the whole, since the argument lacks a complete analysis of the situation, the arguer's recommendation is not convincing.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to validate the conclusion that the sales of Whirlwind video would increase just because they has developed several games with dramatic graphics, which video-game players like most due to a survey. The arguer should provide more concrete evidence to demonstrate that most people would and could buy the games developed by Whirlwind so that they could increase their sales. In addition, the arguer should have to rule out the abovementioned possibilities that would determine the arguer's claim.