argument 205 这篇写得有点郁闷，很混乱感觉~~~没限时

bunnymz2005UID：2146758

Argument205
题目
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."
***********************************************************************************
翻译：
去年10月Belleville市在其中央商业区安装了高照度灯光，那里的破坏公物的行为几乎立即减少。Amburg市最近开始在其中央商业区安排警察骑自行车巡逻，但破坏公物的发生率并没有变化。由于高照度灯光显然是震慑犯罪的最有效途径，我们也应该在Amburg全市安装这种灯光。通过以这种方式减少犯罪，我们可以使本市重新繁荣起来。
***********************************************************************************
提纲：
1．作者错误的认为高照度的灯光导致了破坏公物行为的减少。很有可能Belleville在去年十月之前采取了大量的措施，出动了许多警察在中心区站岗监视；或者对于市民作了教育，并且制定了严厉的惩罚措施起到了威慑作用，跟灯光可能根本没有关系。
2．作者认为高照度灯光是震慑犯罪的最有效形式仅仅是在Belleville的经验和Amburg市巡逻警察措施的失败基础上。一方面，Amburg不一定是失败的，很可能是需要一段时间才能显示出来效果。另一方面，作者没有考虑其他可能更加有效的措施。比如，在中心商业区设立监视器，制定法律法规威慑。
3．就算在中心商业区这种方式可行，在Amburg全市使用么？很可能的是在那些距离中心商业区比较远的地区，就连高照度灯光都被破坏了，还怎么能威慑呢？
4．就算犯罪减少了，本市就繁荣了么？未必吧。一个市的繁荣还取决于多方面的因素，比如经济的发展和政治的民主，还有居民受教与程度的提高，单凭这种威慑，一个社会根本不会有长足的发展。（这点不确定，敬请指点^-^）
***********************************************************************************
正文：
Prior to choosing to install high intensity lighting throughout Amburg for the purpose of combating crime, I find that the evidence presented in this argument requires an in-depth scrutiny from several aspects. In my opinion, the author seems to have posited that Belleville and Amburg are similar enough to compare with each other and thus draw a conclusion that is fundamentally flawed.

To begin with, the threshold problem with this argument is its establishment of unwarranted causal relationship between high intensity lighting and the decrease of the vandalism. In fact, there are many other explanations for this declination. Such alternation may be that long before last October the citizens of Belleville have been educated to cherish and protect the mutual facilities in public. Or perhaps people who once broke the facilities are fear of the punishment prescribed by the new restricted law. Without ruling out these and other factors, the author cannot convince me that it must be the high intensity lighting that are attributable to the declination of the vandalism in central business district of Belleville.

Furthermore, the author also illogically presumes that installing that kind of lighting must be the best way to avoid vandalism merely on the experience of Belleville and on the evidence of the failure of Amburg, which, however, may not be the case. For one thing, the author provides no clear evidence to show that the measure adopted by Amburg have nothing to do with the vandalism in the future. Maybe it would take some time for the measure to have effect. For another thing, the author also fails to consider other possible ways, say, installing camera surveillance that can be used at night,  which may be far better than installing the lighting for through the surveillance police can recognize the face of people who have vandalize the facilities and at length catch them or put them into prison. Since the author fails to respond to these concerns, the assumption that installing the lighting in the central district of Amburg must be the best way is open to doubt.

Besides, the author also commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even assuming that the measure of installing high intensity lighting has effect in Amburg's central business district, it would nevertheless perfunctory to conclude that it would also be applied throughout Amburg. There is a good chance that people who live far away from the central district of Amburg would even break up the lighting since there are often few people out in those distant districts at night. If true, the measure tends to be insignificant for the lightings themselves are also in the danger of being vandalized in those remote places. Hence, absent detailed information about other places in Amburg, the high intensity lighting may also tend to a failure.

Before coming to finish my analysis, there is still another flaws should be pointed out. The author attempts to convince us that by reducing crime via using the lighting, Amburg would revitalize the declining neighborhoods. As we know, the prosperity of one place depends on several factors, such as the democratic politics, the social culture, people's values, etc, and among which the economy is the most important one. Accordingly, we have sufficient reasons to doubt the author's assertions on revitalizing the declining city only by abating crime given the condition of economy is quite awful.

To sum up, the argument is weakened by a series of unsubstantiated postulations as it stands. To better evaluate it, we need to know detailed information about Amburg. Moreover, the author should also provide the evidence that high intensity lighting would surely abate the vandalism in both Belleville and Amburg; otherwise, the argument would be unfounded.

lawrence1984UID：178326

argument 205 这篇写得有点郁闷，很混乱感觉~~~没限时

Argument205
题目
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."
***********************************************************************************
翻译：
去年10月Belleville市在其中央商业区安装了高照度灯光，那里的破坏公物的行为几乎立即减少。Amburg市最近开始在其中央商业区安排警察骑自行车巡逻，但破坏公物的发生率并没有变化。由于高照度灯光显然是震慑犯罪的最有效途径，我们也应该在Amburg全市安装这种灯光。通过以这种方式减少犯罪，我们可以使本市重新繁荣起来。
***********************************************************************************
提纲：
1．作者错误的认为高照度的灯光导致了破坏公物行为的减少。很有可能Belleville在去年十月之前采取了大量的措施，出动了许多警察在中心区站岗监视；或者对于市民作了教育，并且制定了严厉的惩罚措施起到了威慑作用，跟灯光可能根本没有关系。
2．作者认为高照度灯光是震慑犯罪的最有效形式仅仅是在Belleville的经验和Amburg市巡逻警察措施的失败基础上。一方面，Amburg不一定是失败的，很可能是需要一段时间才能显示出来效果。另一方面，作者没有考虑其他可能更加有效的措施。比如，在中心商业区设立监视器，制定法律法规威慑。
3．就算在中心商业区这种方式可行，在Amburg全市使用么？很可能的是在那些距离中心商业区比较远的地区，就连高照度灯光都被破坏了，还怎么能威慑呢？
4．就算犯罪减少了，本市就繁荣了么？未必吧。一个市的繁荣还取决于多方面的因素，比如经济的发展和政治的民主，还有居民受教与程度的提高，单凭这种威慑，一个社会根本不会有长足的发展。（这点不确定，敬请指点^-^）（这里的提纲没有问题啊！很好！虽然不系统，但是很全面清晰。）***********************************************************************************
正文：
Prior to choosing to install high intensity lighting throughout Amburg for the purpose of combating crime, I find that the evidence presented in this argument requires an in-depth scrutiny from several aspects. In my opinion, the author seems to have posited that Belleville and Amburg are similar enough to compare with each other and thus draw a conclusion that is fundamentally flawed.（很好！）

To begin with, the threshold problem（这里给人一种用词重复的感觉！请指教！） with this argument is its establishment of unwarranted causal relationship between high intensity lighting and the decrease of the vandalism.（好！） In fact, there are many other explanations for this declination. Such alternation may be that long before last October the citizens of Belleville have been educated to cherish and protect the mutual facilities in public. Or perhaps people who once broke the facilities are fear of the punishment prescribed by the new restricted law. Without ruling out these and other factors, the author cannot convince me that it must be the high intensity lighting that are attributable to the declination of the vandalism in central business district of Belleville.（很好!他因驳斥，细节具体，句子优美专业！）

Furthermore, the author also illogically presumes that installing that kind of lighting must be the best（用文中的effective way好些！） way to avoid vandalism merely on the experience of Belleville and on the evidence of the failure of Amburg, which, however, may not be the case. For one thing, the author provides no clear evidence to show that the measure adopted by Amburg have nothing to do with the vandalism in the future. Maybe it would take some time for the measure to have effect（其实这里也涉及到there 的指代问题，如果只商业区，那么可以用你现在的这句，如果指的是Amburg，那么文中没有提供任何证据有力的证明措施是失败的。）. For another thing, the author also fails to consider other possible ways, say, installing camera surveillance that can be used at night,  which may be far better than installing the lighting for through the surveillance police can recognize the face of people who have vandalize the facilities and at length catch them or put them into prison. Since the author fails to respond to these concerns, the assumption that installing the lighting in the central district of Amburg must be the best way is open to doubt.（好的，这段写的也很好啊啊！）

Besides, the author also commits a fallacy of hasty generalization（个人认为最好不要出现hasty generation 之类的高深的专业逻辑词语，具体的就可以了，这样太显得高深，阅卷的人也许不太喜欢的。）. Even assuming that the measure of installing high intensity lighting has effect in Amburg's central business district, it would nevertheless perfunctory to conclude that it would also be applied throughout Amburg.（草率推广！） There is a good chance that people who live far away from the central district of Amburg would even break up the lighting since there are often few people out in those distant districts at night. If true, the measure tends to be insignificant for the lightings themselves are also in the danger of being vandalized in those remote places. Hence, absent detailed information about other places in Amburg, the high intensity lighting may also tend to a failure.（很好！）

Before coming to finish my analysis, there is still another flaws should be pointed out. The author attempts to convince us that by reducing crime via using the lighting, Amburg would revitalize the declining neighborhoods. As we know, the prosperity of one place depends on several factors, such as the democratic politics, the social culture, people's values, etc, and among which the economy is the most important one. （呵呵，也许经济真的很重要!） Accordingly, we have sufficient reasons to doubt the author's assertions on revitalizing the declining city only by abating crime given the condition of economy is quite awful.

To sum up, the argument is weakened by a series of unsubstantiated postulations as it stands. To better evaluate it, we need to know detailed information about Amburg. Moreover, the author should also provide the evidence that high intensity lighting would surely abate the vandalism in both Belleville and Amburg; otherwise, the argument would be unfounded.
这篇写得挺好的，为什么会没信心呢？我觉得自己看了都汗颜，不过如果你的打字速度不快，在实战中也许很难写出4个这么好的驳斥点，所以尽量限时！

[ 本帖最后由 lawrence1984 于 2006-2-15 18:09 编辑 ]

lawrence1984UID：178326

I have mailed the word version to your mailbox which might be convenient for your use!
good luck!~