argument90 花了40多分钟，大家看看吧，提点意见也行

cxlbread84UID: 184012

The following qppeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce.
Last October the city of Bellevlle installed high intensity lighting in its central busness 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.


In this argument, the arguer indicates that lighting is the most effective way to combat crime and by reducing crime through installing high intensity lighting can they revitalize the declining neighborhoods in their city. For support, the arguer gives us two reasons. The arguer states that last October the city of Bellevile installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The arguer further states that the city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. This argument suffers from several fallacies which undermine the reasoning.

In the first place, the arguer states that last October the city of Bellevile installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The arguer assumes a causal and effect relationship between the two things listed above. However, no more evidence is presented here other than they happened simultaneously, which casts doubt on the reasoning. Perhaps it is just a coincidence. It is likely that an excellent lecture about rejecting vandalism was just presented there. The lecturer listed the harm of the vandalism and successfully persuaded the attendants to keep an eye on vandals. If this is the case, the argument is weakened.

In the second place, the arguer makes a comparison between the city of Amburg and Belleville. However, it is insufficient to conclude that lighting is prior to police patrol. First, vandals may not know police patrol, so they continued to do vandalism. When several vandals have been punished, others would think twice before doing vandalism. Second, as the arguer says, the Amburg has begun police patrols on bicycles just in its business district, which did not have much vandalism originally. Although police patrols reduced the vandalism there, the other regions' high rate of vandalism eclipses this. Last but not least, the arguer makes a false analogy between Amburg and Belleville, ignoring that they are two relatively independent cities. Put it simply, perhaps people in Belleville are more leery than those in Amburg, so with the help of lighting, they can find vandals and restrain them immediately. Thus, what happened in Belleville will not be necessarily repeated in Amburg. Such possibilities critically undermine the argument.

In addition, to judge whether high intensity lighting is the most effective way to combat crime or not needs at least a comparing among several methods, which is not presented in this argument. Without such support, the arguer at least could not use the absolute word "most effective". Furthermore, a false analogy could be found here again. Crime and vandalism are two items. Crime includes muggings and the like besides vandalism. To strengthen the reasoning, the arguer had better just change the word "crime" to "vandalism" or provide more evidences, such as the data of muggings, to convince the readers.

Finally, even assuming that the reasoning above is valid and neglecting the ignorance of the arguer's absolute words used, the arguer could not jump to the conclusion that they can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in their city just because of reducing crime. It is entirely possible that the neighborhood is declined for many reasons, such as environmental contamination, or the jam of the traffic. The arguer should find the crux and provide evidences to prove that what the main cause is. This further weakens the argument.

In conclusion, the argument is critically weakened by these fallacies presented above. To strengthen the reasoning, the arguer should provide more evidences and details, as well as change the inappropriate words. Without such support, the argument fails to convince.

cxlbread84UID: 184012

开头结尾能不能一句带过阿

meteor18_leeUID: 189655

开头太长据说不好，我也认为，开头拉出原论述结论，切入攻击比较简洁有力的样子。而且据新东方老师说开头可以最后写，呵呵。
全文还没仔细改，结构不错啊，看来背了自己的模板啦，我刚写出自己的第一篇阿狗，东拼西凑啊，痛苦啊！没时间啦！
我的argu169，多多指教啊！
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=324824