argument205 jingjing败笔之作

jingjingtousUID：2164820

TOPIC: ARGUMENT205 - The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce.

"Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime, we should install such lighting throughout Amburg. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."

This composition has been revised twice, it has so many flaws that I cannot decide the primary one

提纲：
1 两件事先后发生不代表有因果联系（vandalism的下降不一定是high lighting导致）
2 样本差异＋草率推广（在B实用不说明在A也适用，且犯罪和vandalism是两码事，且商业区适用不代表其它区
3 不合理的假设，犯罪减少城市就恢复繁荣？其它原因：引进外资，加强官制，改建。。。

Before accepting the author's recommendation that the city of Ambury should install the high light in its central business district for the purpose of declining the crimes and eventually restoring the prosperity of the city, I find all the evidence cited by the author can lend little credible support to this argument.

To begin with, the author unjustifiably assumes that the installation of high intensity lighting in the central business district of Belleville is responsible to the declined vandalism, based on the fact that the decreasing of vandalism occurred after the implementing of this measure. However, the sequence of these events, in itself, does not suffice to prove the causal relationship, because the declining of vandalism in Belleville might result from some other events, for example, the government's reinforcement of strict regulations and the adding of more police units. For that matter, it is entirely possible that the local government held some activities or public speeches, which might significantly improve citizens' realization of protecting the public facilities and consequently reduced vandalism. Therefore, the author fails to establish the cause-and-effect relationship upon which his recommendation tremendously depends.

In addition, the author unreasonably asserts that the new policy of police patrols has sparse effect in preventing vandalism in Amburg in consideration of the constant behavior. However, it might not be the case. The period of time by which we evaluate whether the measure will be effective or not is too limited. Perhaps, the damage behavior will be reduced or disappear within three or four month after the implementing of the policy. Therefore, we have sufficient reasons to believe that it will be a successful strategy in combating vandalism in the foreseeable future.

Moreover, the author' assumption that the measure of high lighting will be the most effective approach to combat crime in Amburg is open to doubt. Primarily, even assuming that it functions effectively and efficiently in Bellevillewe, the author cannot speculate that it would succeed in forestalling vandalism in Amburg without any consideration of the different situations between the two cities such as the finance, the level of moral education, the extent of regulation and so forth. Thus, it is highly possible that the high lighting installation is a costly project which the finance of Amburg cannot support and that poor regulations in Amburg would set off its original effects. Besides, even if the foregoing assertion is confirmed, the author still cannot convince me due to the unreasonable generalization that the measure could combat crime as well as vandalism. Apparently, it begs the question: is the definition of crime is equivalent to that of vandalism? Of course not. Perhaps it is an enforced power to combat vandalism while invalid in preventing drug trading, prostitution, murdering and other crimes. Furthermore, even though the policy will bring the lower criminal rate in the downtown of Amburg, we may query that: should it be broadened to other districts for which have the lower criminal rates previously.

Finally, absent of some other feasible explanations such as carrying out some beneficial policies to attract the alien investment, improving the living conditions of residents and the traffic, reconstructing the city and so forth, the author's prediction of restoring the declined neighborhood of Amburg which merely cling to the measure is totally gratuitous.

In sum, the argument is not cogent basing on several dubious assumptions as discussed above and I cannot accept it at all.

PS：因为这篇文章攻击点太多让我根本搞不清那个是重点，所以。。没能限时成功
        败笔之作，请大家多多指教！:L