AA018欢迎拍砖－Zeros修改标题，见谅

第一篇限时argument严重套用模版：P。407个字，自己感觉中间的部分太单薄了，怎么改正并在以后的练习中注意呢？写完了还有3分钟，但是似乎一定要留一点时间检查语法错误呀。

18. The following is an excerpt from a memo written by the head of a governmental department.

“Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department. We already have a code of ethics that companies doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it. We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year, and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working—not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes are.”

政府部门领导所写备忘录的摘录：

我们既不需要更强的道德规范也不需要更强的强制机制来确保和部门做生意的公司的道德行为。我们已经有了和这个部门做生意的公司必须遵守的道德准则，而事实上所有这些公司也同意遵循这些准则。我们也知道准则和当前的经济环境相关，因为它是去年制定的，而且对随后我们的工作中遇到的公司违例情况有直接的反应。这和很多对潜在违例进行抽象的预期的准则是不同的。

In this argument, the head of a government department concludes that neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are essential to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with that department. To support his conclusion, the head points out that the department already have had a code which is obeyed by the relevant companies. In addition, the author reasons that the code is in accordance with the current business environment because it was approved within the last year and in direct response to specific violations thus very practical and not abstract. At the first glance, the author's argument appears to be somewhat convincing, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. This argument is problematic for the following reasons.

  In the first place, this argument rests on a gratuitous assumption that all the companies obey the code will continue to obey it in the future. However, this assumption is questionable because the head of the department provides no evidence to support this argument. In fact the companies are likely to violate the law although they confirm to it in the past for the following reasons such as the inducements to violate the code are much more enticing; the leaders of companies will be more reckless than their predecessors and so forth.

  In the second place, the head of the department committed a logical fallacy of "all the things are equal". The author asserts that the code is relevant to the current environment since it was approved within the last year, but it is in no case that all the things will stay the same as they were last year. It is likely that the whole industry will undergo a technical development and thus the code regulate those companies should be corrected in some detailed quotations. And it is also likely that there will be nationwide legislation reform which will require the code to change simultaneously.

  In conclusion, it is imprudent for the head of that department to make the preceding claim that no stronger regulation is needed to supervise the companies. Because the evidence cited in the analysis is too weak to lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more substantial evidence to rule out all the above possibilities that I analyzed. Moreover, the author should also give evidence that support his allege that all the companies will obey the code in the future.

一看是密密麻麻， 我先晕一下。 问问， 是不是30分钟内?