argument61 泡面组8/15作业，2nd argu

real_vcUID: 195631

Argument61:
-------题目-------
The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria.
'Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years.'
-------正文-------
The author concludes in the report that we need not to spend any of schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years. To support his claim, the author provides the national average ratio of computers possessed in the kindergarten toK-12 is 1:5 which is regarded as a very good ratio. With the ratio of 1:7 in Eyleria's schools, students still can master the ability of using computer well when graduating. After carefully analyzed, the argument has several flaws.

Firstly, the average ratio is not a clear statistical data. Perhaps in some developed districts of the nation, the ratio is very high such as 1:1, while in some developing districts it may be very low even approaches to 0 due to the level of economical development. Although educators consider this ratio very good, I still can not be convinced without any detailed and clear evidence.

Secondly, the author makes a mistake in causality. He holds the opinion that the so-called very good ratio let students can use computers daily in their classroom. Yet whether the reason that the ratio is good stand still remains testifying, how can we believe the result. Even if it is a good ratio, we cannot assure every student can use the computer. Perhaps someone always occupy the computers till evening--school is over, then others may not have chance to use daily. Thus, the author fail convincing us with his view.

Thirdly, there is another assumption in the report. In Eyleria's K-12 schools with the such ratio of 1:7, students will be fully proficient in the use of computer. This is maybe the specification in Eyleria. It is entirely possible that K-12 schools in that area provides more computer course for students to learn than other districts. Also, maybe in Eyleria more students have computer at home. So they have more chance to use them.

Finally, the author makes another causality mistake. The condition that students in Eyleria master use of computers better hasn't been justified， how can we state there is no need to spend money on computer in schools. Even it is true, we still cannot guarantee the whole nation has the same situation. It is also a false analogy. Yet the author hasn’t mention the situation about other technology in schools, therefore the author's another conclusion that it is no need to spend money on other technology is not persuadable. Perhaps many schools need to improve their equipment in education such as the multimedia teaching.

In sum, the argument cannot persuade us. To strengthen his assertion, the author should provide more detailed and clear ratio and the situation that students use the computers. Also, the condition of possession of computers at home should be state. We appreciate that the author offers us the information about students’ use of computer in other areas of nation.

bishao422UID: 204362

The author concludes in the report that we need not to spend any of schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years. To support his claim, the author provides the national average ratio of computers possessed in the kindergarten toK-12 is 1:5, which is regarded as a very good ratio. With the ratio of 1:7 in Eyleria's schools, students still can master the ability of using computer well when graduating. After carefully analyzed, the argument has several flaws.

Firstly, the average ratio is not a clear statistical data. Perhaps in some developed districts of the nation, the ratio is very high such as 1:1; while in some developing districts it may be very low even approaches to 0 due to the level of economical development. Although educators consider this ratio very good, I still cannot be convinced without any detailed and clear evidence.

Secondly, the author makes a mistake in causality. He holds the opinion that the so-called very good ratio let students can use computers daily in their classroom. Yet whether the reason that the ratio is good stand still remains testifying, how can we believe the result. Even if it is a good ratio, we cannot assure every student can use the computer. Perhaps someone always occupy the computers till evening--school is over, then others may not have chance to use daily.好似有点牵强 Thus, the author fails convincing us with his view.

Thirdly, there is another assumption in the report. In Eyleria's K-12 schools with the such去掉 ratio of 1:7, students will be fully proficient in the use of computer. This is maybe the specification in Eyleria.表明一下the count of computers is not the necessary condition to be fully proficient in the use of computer, 然后再举下面的例子 It is entirely possible that K-12 schools in that area provides more computer courses for students to learn than other districts. Also, maybe in Eyleria more students have computer at home. So they have more chances to use them.

Finally, the author makes another causality mistake. The condition that students in Eyleria master use of computers better hasn't been justified， how can we state there is no need to spend money on computer in schools. Even it is true, we still cannot guarantee the whole nation has the same situation. It is also a false analogy. Yet the author hasn’t mentioned the situation about other technology in schools, therefore the author's another conclusion that it is no need to spend money on other technology is not persuadable. Perhaps many schools need to improve their equipment in education such as the multimedia teaching.

In sum, the argument cannot persuade us. To strengthen his assertion, the author should provide more detailed and clear ratio and the situation that students use the computers. Also, the condition of possession of computers at home should be state. We appreciate that the author offers us the information about students’ use of computer in other areas of nation.

语言自己很薄弱 所以不在这里班门弄斧了
谬误都找到了 但是逻辑上的分析不是很够说服力 可以修改下 :)
有空帮我看看:handshake 谢谢
Issue4
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=319641
Argument17
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=319645

niuniu1983UID: 2117413

The author concludes in the report that we need not to spend any of schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years. To support his claim, the author provides the national average ratio of computers possessed in the kindergarten toK-12 is 1:5 which is regarded as a very good ratio. With the ratio of 1:7 in Eyleria's schools, students still can master the ability of using computer well when graduating. After carefully analyzed, the argument has several flaws.

Firstly, the average ratio is not a clear statistical data. Perhaps （if）in some developed districts of the nation, the ratio is very high such as 1:1, while in some developing districts it may be very low even approaches to 0 due to the level of economical development，（then the ratio of 1:7 is far lower than the ones in some developed districts.这样补一句较好，好像感觉完整些）. Although educators consider this ratio very good, I（we，用I太主观，最后是不用人称） still can not be convinced without any detailed and clear evidence.

Secondly, the author makes a mistake in causality. He holds the opinion that the so-called very good ratio let（means） students can use computers daily in their classroom. Yet whether the reason that the ratio is good stand still remains testifying, how can we believe the result.（这个让步应该是个前提吧，最好放开头） Even if it is a good ratio, we cannot assure every student can use the computer. Perhaps someone always occupy the computers till evening--school is over, then others may not have chance to use daily（可以说学校电脑开放的时间非常的少）. Thus, the author fail convincing us with his view.

Thirdly, there is another assumption in the report. In Eyleria's K-12 schools with the such ratio of 1:7, students will be fully proficient in the use of computer. This is maybe the specification in Eyleria. It is entirely possible that K-12 schools in that area provides more computer course（courses） for students to learn than other districts. Also, maybe in Eyleria more students have computer at home. So they have more chance to use them.（好像这个段落没有总结，而且没有明显的举出错误，写得不好，参考一下模版吧）
Finally, the author makes another causality mistake. The condition that students in Eyleria master use of computers better hasn't been justified， how can we state there is no need to spend money on computer in schools. Even it is true, we still cannot guarantee the whole nation has the same situation. It is also a false analogy. Yet the author hasn’t mention the situation about other technology in schools, therefore the author's another conclusion that it is no need to spend money on other technology is not persuadable. Perhaps many schools need to improve their equipment in education such as the multimedia teaching.（这段写得不好，没有抓住实质。反例有些空，可以说这些设备很多都已经老化，大大落后，数量上是有的，但是质量上呢？ 别人都是p4，而我们只有p2）In sum, the argument cannot persuade us. To strengthen his assertion, the author should provide more detailed and clear ratio and the situation that students use the computers. Also, the condition of possession of computers at home should be state. We appreciate that the author offers us the information about students’ use of computer in other areas of nation.

每段开头都是很短的句子，变化很少，多用用模版的语言，还是有参考价值的

[ Last edited by niuniu1983 on 2005-8-16 at 19:28 ]