AA018请拍砖

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.”

Discuss how well reasoned... etc.

In this argument, the author concludes that neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department. To buttress his argument, the author points out that there is a code of ethics that companies doing business in this department are urged to abide by and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it.  In addition, the author assumes that the code does work because it is relevant to the current business environment and was approved within the last year and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working. At first glance, the evidence is persuasive, but a close examination will reveal that the argument is groundless in reasoning in the following aspects.

First, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. They arguer contends that we already have a code of ethics that companies doing business with the department are urged to abide by, therefore all of these companies have agreed to follow it. However, it's not necessarily the case. The argument is groundless unless the arguer can provide evidence that the companies doing business with this department is representative of all the companies. For example, if companies with this department are some new established companies with few codes of ethics, the codes for them will not be applicable to those companies with long-term operation.

Second, the arguer assumes that all things are equal. The arguer says that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year. Yet, the evidence is insufficient is reasoning because the business environment will change quickly and the code approve within last year will not be totally applicable in this year or in the future.

In this argument, the author concludes that neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department. To buttress his argument, the author points out that there is a code of ethics that companies doing business in this department are urged to abide by and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it.  In addition, the author assumes that the code does work because it is relevant to the current business environment and was approved within the last year and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working. At first glance, the evidence is persuasive, but a close examination will reveal that the argument is groundless in reasoning in the following aspects.

First, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. They arguer contends that we already have a code of ethics that companies doing business with the department are urged to abide by, therefore all of these companies have agreed to follow it. However, it's not necessarily the case. The argument is groundless unless the arguer can provide evidence that the companies doing business with this department is representative of all the companies. For example, if companies with this department are some new established companies with few codes of ethics, the codes for them will not be applicable to those companies with long-term operation.

Second, the arguer assumes that all things are equal. The arguer says that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year. Yet, the evidence is insufficient is reasoning because the business environment will change quickly and the code approve within last year will not be totally applicable in this year or in the future.

In summary, the argument will be more reasonable if the arguer can provide strong evidence that the characteristic of companies doing business are representative cases of all the companies and that the business environment keeps unchanged during the

和issue一样，楼主还是写的不错的，用词阿，句式阿等等都没有太大问题，但是同样一个问题，字数太少，另外楼主好像文章没有贴完整，最后一段应该是漏掉了一点吧。同时觉得楼主中间段单薄了一点，只有两个逻辑错误，个人觉得可以再找一个逻辑错误出来进行argu。当然可能遇到那种逻辑错误比较多的题目，可能楼主会写得更多一点。个人觉得只要楼主的字数增加了，即文章更饱满了，再加上楼主不会出错的语法，单词，想必肯定是高分的大nn。

当然以上和那篇issue的话都是我个人观点，我不是什么NN，只是把自己观点说出来，欢迎楼主的反驳阿，同时期待其他NN们看到后，也可以说啊，帮我也提高提高！