AAA02集思广益中参加讨论提高自己惠及他人

A2.A planning consultant to the Banbridge Riverfront Festival Committee made the following recommendation to the committee.

“The Riverfront Festival drew 10,000 visitors — not bad for your first year. You should double that number, however, by bringing in the Jolly Pirate Ship. In St. Clyde, the Harbor Week Festival averaged 30,000 visitors per year over the last decade, but the attendance reached a high point of 45,000 a couple of years ago, when the Jolly Pirate was at the Harbor Week Festival. One of the organizers reported that the ship was especially popular with school groups. Have the Jolly Pirate Ship sail into the Riverfront Festival next summer, and your festival will be much more successful.”

My answer:

In this argument, the consultant recommends that The Riverfront Festival introduce the Jolly Pirate Ship so as to double the number of visitors to 20,000. To substantiate the conclusion, the consultant cites the example of the Harbor Week Festival that the Jolly Pirate Ship was introduced. Although the consultant believes that the recommendation will lead to the success, I wonder whether the recommendation bears much analysis. As far as I am concerned, the reasoning in this argument is unconvincing for several reasons.

In the first place, the consultant fails to provide more sound evidence and detailed information of the proposal. The consultant intends to convince us that the proposal will come true, but it does not prove it applicable to the situation of The Riverfront Festival. That is to say, the consultant should demonstrate the synopsis of the recommendation. Only based on the specific and concrete information about the proposal, can the customer judge and decide.

In the second place, the consultant commits a fallacy of “False Analogy”. In other words, the consultant fails to indicate the difference between two festivals, and unfairly assumes that the experience in the first case will be applicable in the second case. But as far as I am concerned, the consultant was appealing to his experience. In fact, the consultant did not do a careful research on the situation, and therefore the proposal is not compelling.

As it stands, the recommendation is not persuasive. To make it logically and practically acceptable, the consultant should provide more convincing evidence and get the conclusion well reasoned. Otherwise, the customer will not accept such simple a suggestion without sound reasons and feasible solutions.        

呵呵，我似乎没有引用的必要哦。写的非常好！赞一个！只是个人觉得最后一句话逻辑上可能需要再斟酌一下。

说一点意见吧（给牛人参考）：

尽管你写得十分条分缕析，冗字全无，而且范文里面也经常是300字不到就是一篇AA甚至AI但是我觉得以GG的实力（看了你的那个句型的帖），写到400应该是很轻松的事情，那么就还是再多写一点吧。其实逻辑错误还有啊。

比如：前些年海盗船受欢迎以后呢？

          banbridge是否也有很喜欢海盗船的顾客群？

字数也还是挺重要的：P。

谢谢judydongxueni  MM！
是有点短，完全同意
要上5分，怎么也得凑5段
写提纲的时候应该
再加上一个Logical Fallacy的
比如针对“One of the organizers reported that ”
还可以指出Gratuitous Assumption

今天可以偷懒了居然两个都讨论过

希望大家集思广益

写了两个小时，得出下面的文章，这是欧的第二篇，请大家多多指教

In this argument, the consulter concludes that the Banbridge Riverfront Festival Committee should bring the Jolly Pirate Ship into the Riverfront Festival to acquire the more success. The evidence cited is that when the Jolly Pirate was at the Harbor Week Festival in St. Clyde the average attendance reached a higher point a couple of years ago than the last decade. This argument is not convincing because it have to base on three questionable assumptions to support the consulter’s conclusion.

The first assumption is that the Jolly Pirate Ship alone has caused the success of the Harbor Week Festival a couple of years ago. However there is little evidence to support this assumption. Just because the attendance reached a higher point at the same year that the Jolly Pirate Ship was at the Festival than at the previous years, we cannot draw the conclusion that the Jolly Pirate Ship led to the increase of attendance. While perhaps indicative of such a pattern, we merely demonstrate a correlation between the introduction of the Jolly Pirate Ship and the success of the Festival. It is possible that many other factors contribute to the increase of attendance, such as growth of local population, increased enrollment of school, and introduction of other entertainment equipment. Because the consulter fails to examine and eliminate these factors and other possible causal explanations, it is presumptuous to claim that the success of the Festival determined solely by the Jolly Pirate Ship.

The second assumption is that facts drawn from the Harbor Week Festival are applicable to the Riverfront Festival. This might not be the case, even though they have some similarities indeed. Moreover, the differences between them have vital effect on the success of the Festival, thus making the analogy highly suspect. Based on the information provided by the consulter that the ship was especially popular with school groups, it is possible that the majority of increased attendance are students in the St. Clyde. So as the ship was brought, the attendance reached a high point of 45,000 at the Harbor Week Festival. However, the location of the Riverfront Festival has only few schools so that the introduction of the ship has minor effect on the overall attendance. If so, this assumption commits the fallacy of analogy.

Even if the preceding assumptions are granted, the additional assumption must also be considered that event that happened a couple of years ago will extend the following years. The fact that affects the attendance a couple of years ago does not necessarily exist in the next year. For example, income level surged a couple of years ago, so many people went to the Festival to enjoy their lives. While this year economy recession slows down the living standard and this condition will last a few years, there are fewer people to attend the Festival the next summer than ever before. If it is the case, the assumption commits the fallacy of “all things are equal”.

As it stands, the argument is not compelling. To strengthen the argument, the consulter would have to demonstrate that no factors other than the ship cause the success of the Harbor Week Festival and such success pattern is applicable to the Riverfront Festival in the following years. In addition, the consulter should provide concrete evidence to rule out other fallacies. By doing so, the argument would become more conclusive.

1.The report is baised for the students cannot represent all the visitors.

2. The author assumes that students everywhere share the same interest.

呵呵，可以作为两个小的分论点，隶属于report的问题吧

In St. Clyde, the Harbor Week Festival averaged 30,000 visitors per year over the last decade, but the attendance reached a high point of 45,000 a couple of years ago, when the Jolly Pirate was at the Harbor Week Festival.

1)causal oversimplification-the increase in attendance attribute to other introduced performance at that time-acrobatics performance

2)all things are equal-the success happened several years ago does not guarantee the success in the future.

One of the organizers reported that the ship was especially popular with school groups. Have the Jolly Pirate Ship sail into the Riverfront Festival next summer, and your festival will be much more successful.”

3)false analogy-school groups accounts for a large proportion of population in St. Clyde but very small one in R.