argument239【challenge yourself小组】第三次作业 by springelf

springelfUID：2458536

TOPIC: ARGUMENT239 - The following appeared as an editorial in the local newspaper of Dalton.

"When the neighboring town of Williamsville adopted a curfew four months ago that made it illegal for persons under the age of 18 to loiter or idle in public places after 10 p.m., youth crime in Williamsville dropped by 27 percent during curfew hours. In Williamsville's town square, the area where its citizens were once most outraged at the high crime rate, not a single crime has been reported since the curfew was introduced. Therefore, to help reduce its own rising crime rate, the town of Dalton should adopt the same kind of curfew. A curfew that keeps young people at home late at night will surely control juvenile delinquency and protect minors from becoming victims of crime."
WORDS: 424          TIME: 00:37:37          DATE: 2008-7-28 17:16:36

In this argument, the speaker suggests that the town of Dalton (D) should adopt the same curfew as the one adopted by the town of Williamsville (W) four months ago. To support his suggestion, he cites the evidence that the decrease of juvenile delinquency in W town. Close scrutiny of his evidence, however, little of his evidence lend credible to us.

On the first glance, the difference between conception of rate of youth crime and amount of youth crime is confused by speaker. The speaker only told us that youth crime dropped by 27% during curfew hours, but ignore the amount of the youth crime. It is entirely possible that the rate of youth crime decrease from 50% to 23%, yet the total number of youth crime increase from 100 to 200. If so, the declaration that a curfew will control juvenile delinquency is not persuasive.

In addition, nor the mere fact that in W's town square not a single crime has been reported since the curfew was introduce accomplish bolster the assertion. For, no existence of crime in square is little indication that there's no crime happened in urban. Perhaps, due to the curfew, the youth cannot loiter in town, and they idle in urban, where there are fewer policemen. If it is the case, perhaps more juvenile delinquency will happen in urban. Therefore, the fact that no crime happen in the square cannot convince me.

Finally, even if all the assumption referred above is true, the arguer fails to take into account the inherent differences between town W and town D. Perhaps the same course of action would be ineffective on town D due to a myriad of differences, such as environmental, attitudes of residents, the rate of youth crime to total crime in town D, whole economic conditions and so on. If the youth crime account for little or no rate in entire crime, the curfew will be ineffective. Or if the curfew will decline the consumption of the young and the young are the primary consumer in town D, and the residents will oppose curfew. In sum, without consideration of the different between the two towns, the claim to suggest the two towns to adopt the same curfew will is a weak argument.

In conclusion, the argument is not well supported by the evidence offered by the speaker. To convince me, the speaker should provide more information that the curfew decreases the amount of youth crime in all areas in the town W, and the same between the two towns.  

qilluraUID：2186638

好牛－－ 第一点完全没想到

xomaeUID：2468629

In this argument, the speaker suggests that the town of Dalton (D) should adopt the same curfew as the one adopted by the town of Williamsville (W) four months ago. To support his suggestion, he cites the evidence that the decrease of juvenile delinquency in W town. Close scrutiny of his evidence, however, little of his evidence lend credible to us.

On the first glance, the difference between conception of rate of youth crime and amount of youth crime is confused by speaker. The speaker only told us that youth crime dropped by 27% during curfew hours, but ignore the amount of the youth crime. It is entirely possible that the rate of youth crime decrease from 50% to 23%, yet the total number of youth crime increase from 100 to 200. If so, the declaration that a curfew will control juvenile delinquency is not persuasive.

In addition, nor the mere fact that in W's town square not a single crime has been reported since the curfew was introduce accomplish bolster the assertion. For, no existence of crime in square is little indication that there's no crime happened in urban. Perhaps, due to the curfew, the youth cannot loiter in town, and they idle in urban, where there are fewer policemen. If it is the case, perhaps more juvenile delinquency will happen in urban. Therefore, the fact that no crime happen in the square cannot convince me.

Finally, even if all the assumption referred above is true, the arguer fails to take into account the inherent differences between town W and town D. Perhaps the same course of action would be ineffective on town D due to a myriad of differences, such as environmental, attitudes of residents, the rate of youth crime to total crime in town D, whole economic conditions and so on. If the youth crime account for little or no rate in entire crime, the curfew will be ineffective. Or if the curfew will decline the consumption of the young and the young are the primary consumer in town D, and the residents will oppose curfew. In sum, without consideration of the different between the two towns, the claim to suggest the two towns to adopt the same curfew will is a weak argument.

In conclusion, the argument is not well supported by the evidence offered by the speaker. To convince me, the speaker should provide more information that the curfew decreases the amount of youth crime in all areas in the town W, and the same between the two towns.

组长不厚道~这是范文吗？

springelfUID：2458536

小X你才不厚道，不好好帮我修改作文~~~:rolleyes:

xomaeUID：2468629

改了~改不出来...

小火龙33UID：2448175

In this argument, the speaker suggests that the town of Dalton (D) should adopt the same curfew as the one adopted by the town of Williamsville (W) four months ago. To support his suggestion, he cites the evidence that the decrease of juvenile delinquency in W town. Close scrutiny of his evidence, however, little of his evidence lend credible to us.（简洁清晰的开头哈） On the first glance, the difference between conception of rate of youth crime（conception不太理解哈~是犯罪比率么？，） and amount of youth crime is confused by speaker. The speaker only told us that youth crime dropped by 27% during curfew hours, but ignore the amount of the youth crime. It is entirely possible that the rate of youth crime decrease from 50% to 23%, yet the total number of youth crime increase from 100 to 200. If so, the declaration that a curfew will control juvenile delinquency is not persuasive. In addition, nor the mere fact that in W's town square not a single crime has been reported since the curfew was introduce（d) accomplish bolster the assertion. For, no existence of crime in square is little indication that there's no crime happened in urban(urban是adj.吧~俺觉得应该加个定冠词或加个areas). Perhaps, due to the curfew, the youth cannot loiter in town, and they idle in urban, where there are fewer policemen. If it is the case, perhaps more juvenile delinquency will happen in urban. Therefore, the fact that no crime happen in the square cannot convince me. Finally, even if all the assumption referred above is true, the arguer fails to take into account the inherent differences between town W and town D. Perhaps the same course of action would be ineffective on town D due to a myriad of differences, such as environmental, attitudes of residents, the rate of youth crime to total crime in town D, whole economic conditions and so on. If the youth crime account for little or no rate in entire crime, the curfew will be ineffective. Or if the curfew will decline the consumption of the young and the young are the primary consumer in town D, and the residents will oppose curfew.(这点很新颖哈） In sum, without consideration of the different(differences) between the two towns, the claim to suggest the two towns to adopt the same curfew will is(?) a weak argument. In conclusion, the argument is not well supported by the evidence offered by the speaker. To convince me, the speaker should provide more information that the curfew decreases the amount of youth crime in all areas in the town W, and the same between the two towns.

组长太强大啦~~~啦~~~啦~~~