argument128 快考试了,发篇ARUG大家拍拍...

TDZLUID：2327447

题目：ARGUMENT128 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Garden City Gazette.

"To address the parking problems in our downtown business district, it has been proposed that the city increase parking capacity by building a four-story parking garage. However, this project would cost more than it would to improve the downtown pedestrian plaza. Because the pedestrian plaza is an important attraction that draws people to the downtown area, improvements to it will increase business for downtown merchants. The merchants' higher profits will ultimately produce increased tax revenues for the city. Therefore, we should invest in the plaza improvements first and then use the revenues thus generated to pay for the construction of the parking garage."

In this argument, the conclusion is that they should invest in the plaza improvements first and then use the revenues thus generated to pay for the construction of the parking garage. It is well-presented, but not well-reasoned, when I find some fallacies that undermine the validity.

First of all, the arguer asserts an unreliable assumption that investing on pedestrian plaza's business would cost more than it would to improve the downtown pedestrian plaza. There are always two kinds of benefits: direct and indirect ones. Firstly, the direct value of investing on downtown business is well-presented in the argument, while the direct value of investing on parking garage is totally absent. Parking garage can provide more places for cars, and perhaps can earn fees from offering this service. If the number of cars in this area is quite large, it is possible that the total number of packing fee each year may surpass that of business fees. In other words, it would for sure improve the downtown plaza more than it costs. Secondly, the indirect value of building a garage still can not be neglected. With a new and large garage, the parking problems can be well-solved in the very beginning. As a result, downtown merchants can direct benefit from the improvement because they also use vehicles for both buying and selling. For example, they need cars to buy some products for sales. Still more, perhaps with more parking places, they can improve their quality of service by conveying the goods ordered by customers to anywhere they want. In conclusion, the assumption is far from reliable until the arguer may provide more strong evidence.

Secondly, even if the garage costs more than it earns and may be less valuable than investing on business, it is no indication that building garage should give precedence to investing on business. There are more possibilities should be taken into account while investigating into this issue. For example, perhaps the parking problem is so urgent to be solved that if not, the business of downtown could be strictly restricted. Perhaps the majority of customers would like to go shopping by cars, so if the parking places in Gazette is quite limited, they are more likely to give up to go shopping in this area. Once it happens, even if they invest more money on business, the profit will still remain or even decrease. In addition, if we all count on the profit which is collected by business taxes, other questions is open to doubt: when can it have enough money to build a parking garage? If the time is too long, concerning the urgent demand today, giving up the project now could give rise to the deteriorating circumstance of parking in future, which may bring more problems. As a result, without ruling out these alternatives, it is far from to assert that investing on business should go first.
晕,漏了个可能,就是说那个地方加大投资也不一定赢利....狂晕这个大的攻击点,FT

In addition, the arguer overlooks some interests except for business. The government should not only focus on the interests of business and pay no attention on other aspects, such as well-being of public. So building a garage which relieve the pressure of parking, can certainly serve the public in a whole, because some people who work and live around downtown area need parking places everyday. As a result, without taking social aspect and goverment's responsibility to improve its citizens' life into account, it is unwarranted to conclude that investing on business should be placed ahead.

In sum, without casting off many possibilities listed above, it is hard to conclude that the investment on garage is less valuable than that on business. Moreover, without taking the public interests into account, it is hard to believe the arguer’s conclusion.

[ 本帖最后由 TDZL 于 2007-4-14 21:16 编辑 ]

IloveissuetooUID：2323606

我正看128,  打死都想不出第3个点来攻击
a pedestrian plaza 会 contribute to 'well-being of public'更多吧，觉得
怎么写呢？

speaklessUID：2205899

个人感觉可以
1)攻击前提:COSTS MORE THAN EARNS
2)攻击赢利
3)攻击之前

IloveissuetooUID：2323606

今天在写这一篇...

原帖由 speakless 于 2007-4-16 11:04 发表
个人感觉可以
1)攻击前提:COSTS MORE THAN EARNS
2)攻击赢利
3)攻击之前

cost more than it earns是前提吗？ 题目中只说到cost more than  it does to improve the plaza呀
盈利和之前是指什么？没有太懂
我攻击的两点是：
delaying improvement to the parking building might harm conveniency and hence profit
Perhaps the p;aza is not as attractive as it's supporsed to be

LZ提到的cost more我当成不可批驳的前提
而且细看一下LZ body1的论证其实也是profit,不是TS讲到的cost..跑了..

iq28UID：2152875

In this argument, the conclusion is that they should invest in the plaza improvements first and then use the revenues thus generated to pay for the construction of the parking garage. It is well-presented, but not well-reasoned, when I find some fallacies that undermine the validity.

First of all, the arguer asserts an unreliable assumption that investing on pedestrian plaza's business would cost more than it would to improve the downtown pedestrian plaza. (对于此ts有两种理解:1攻击面是下面所有的推理,显然这个过广,不妥;2对于前提的argu,显然更不妥.sigh.且看你下面的论证) There are always two kinds of benefits:(cost跳转到benefits, sigh.很混乱的结构)  direct and indirect ones. Firstly, the direct value of investing on downtown business is well-presented in the argument, while the direct value of investing on parking garage is totally absent. Parking garage can provide more places for cars, and perhaps can earn fees from offering this service. If the number of cars in this area is quite large, it is possible that the total number of packing fee each year may surpass that of business fees. In other words, it would for sure improve the downtown plaza more than it costs. (ft,显然fee不是主要的收入,停车场容量大了才能有更多的人去商场买东西哇,这个才是最大的indirect的利润来源)(...原来在下面说了...可能放在前面会更好,这个indirect的利润远远大于direct的利润,甚至可以说direct的那个最多只能作为补充) Secondly, the indirect value of building a garage still can not be neglected. With a new and large garage, the parking problems can be well-solved in the very beginning. As a result, downtown merchants can direct benefit from the improvement because they also use vehicles for both buying and selling. (这个明显不是主要的,谁说以前商人不用车子了?) For example, they need cars to buy some products for sales. (这个例子举了等于不举) Still more, perhaps with more parking places, they can improve their quality of service by conveying the goods ordered by customers to anywhere they want. (无语了,建停车场和把货物发送到各个地方有什么关系?) In conclusion, the assumption is far from reliable until the arguer may provide more strong evidence. (扯了半天indirect的问题没有说到点子上)

Secondly, even if the garage costs more than it earns and may be less valuable than investing on business, (这句话说的让人心寒...太满了...下面基本很难转折回来了.都自己说了没有投资在商业上有价值后面再转回去简直是自己扇自己嘴巴) it is no indication that building garage should give precedence to investing on business. There are more possibilities should be taken into account while investigating into this issue. For example, perhaps the parking problem is so urgent to be solved that if not, the business of downtown could be strictly restricted. (这个难道就不是扩容停车场的value么?扇前面的话嘴巴...) Perhaps the majority of customers would like to go shopping by cars, so if the parking places in Gazette is quite limited, they are more likely to give up to go shopping in this area. Once it happens, even if they invest more money on business, the profit will still remain or even decrease. (到此为止还没发现这个段落和上个段落层次的拉开) In addition, if we all count on the profit which is collected by business taxes, other questions is open to doubt: when can it have enough money to build a parking garage? If the time is too long, concerning the urgent demand today, giving up the project now could give rise to the deteriorating circumstance of parking in future, which may bring more problems. (这个点倒是不错.赞.只是觉得段内层次太糟糕) As a result, without ruling out these alternatives, it is far from to assert that investing on business should go first.

In addition, the arguer overlooks some interests except for business. The government should not only focus on the interests of business and pay no attention on other aspects, such as well-being of public. So building a garage which relieve the pressure of parking, can certainly serve the public in a whole, because some people who work and live around downtown area need parking places everyday. (再详细往下讲啊?怎么影响了?) As a result, without taking social aspect and goverment's responsibility to improve its citizens' life into account, it is unwarranted to conclude that investing on business should be placed ahead. (这个点也相当不错)

In sum, without casting off many possibilities listed above, it is hard to conclude that the investment on garage is less valuable than that on business. Moreover, without taking the public interests into account, it is hard to believe the arguer’s conclusion.

其实前两个段落的反例都用的不错
但是主次顺序不好
段落内段落间关系混乱
别的问题不大
其实你攻击还是蛮成熟的
加油