Argument230 【大杀四方 yibin.he 第二次作业】欢迎拍转

yibin.heUID: 2172795

题目：230The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis.

"Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway. Subsequently, several factories were constructed there, crime rates in the area declined, and property tax revenues for the entire city increased. To further revitalize the city, we should now take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city. Since some houses and apartments in existing nearby neighborhoods are currently unoccupied, alternate housing for those displaced by this action will be readily available."

正文：(words 570, 未限时)

In this argument, the arguer tends to recommend that in order to revitalize the city, we should use the houses in the declining residential area on one side of the city of Transopolis for industrial use. To justify the claim, the arguer cites the measures taken ten years ago in another side of the city, which, he claims ,resulted in crime rates declination and tax revenue increase. Then the arguer suggest that the same action should be taken on the opposite of the city. At last, the arguer concluded that the houses there can be displaced by the action since they are currently unoccupied. This argument has logical fallacies in some aspects.

First, the arguer simply attributes the phenomenen of the crime rates declination and the tax revenue increase to the adapting of unstandard housing for industrial use, thus thinking that the actotion taken is the only reason and must lead to these results. The declining of crime rates may be caused by other factors, perhaps during that period of time, the number of police in that area increased, or people live of work in that area pay more attention to their security, all these can reduce the crime rates. as for the increase of the property tax revenue, it is possible that the government elevate the tax rate that time, although the production remained the same or even lowered down, the tax revenue would go up. The arguer didn't substantiate the statement strongly, making me unconvinced of what he argued.

Secondly, even if such action taken can lead to good results, the arguer assume further that the same thing will happen if we take the same measure in another district, which was based on a false analogy. The condition of the opposite of the city may not be the same as that of the area in which the housing were used for industrial purpose ten years ago. In the former area, possibly it is not beneficial to develop the industry as in the latter district. For example, if the former area is a tourist attraction, which will also probably reduce the residence, it is undoubtedly profitable to build more halls, cultivate more free markets, and develop commercial stores instead of constructing large factories making noises and release pollutants every day. Therefore, the arguer holds an imprudent opinion that what happened in one place must take place in another different area.

Finally, the arguer draws a hasty conclusion that the alternate housing for the industrial purpose are available since some houses are unoccupied currently. By considering that the houses may belong to those who went out for holidays, we cannot think that they are available any time we want. Moreover,the houses there may be in good condition, not substandard as mentioned near the freeway, displacing them for industrial use probably cause much economic loss, let alone to revitalize the city. The arguer's failing to rule out these aspects may undermine the argument.

In sum, the arguer didn't make a convincible argument. To strengthen the recommendation, he should provide strong evidence that industrial use of the housing in the city will lead to good results. To better assess this argument, more information is need: what indeed the main reason of the declination of the residence is, what kind of condition this area on the opposite side of the city has, and the real reason for the unoccupation of the houses there.

princaUID: 2263271

刚刚拜读了一下. 受益匪浅, 也说说个人的小想法:
1. 从逻辑上来看, 按照题目的叙述顺序进行了攻击. 个人认为很强, 而且驳斥的推理举例也很到位, 警察啦, 提高税收拉.
2. 首段好像Arguer这个词用的太多了, 感觉需做调整.
3. 有几处闪光用词, 个人认为的, imprudent opinion, substantiate the statement strongly.等.这些都很好的做到了每段的呼应和总结.
4. 结尾感觉是否用疑问句来列举出需要提供的arguments更好?更有力度?
5. 感觉有点儿模板气息? 是吗? 呵呵!

以上纯属个人意见, 由于水平有限, 让哥们儿我写出如此文章还需时限.....长见识了. ;)