Journalist:
Although a recent poll found that more than half of all eligible voters support the idea of a political party whose primary concern is education, only 26% would like to join it, and only 16% would be prepared to donate money to it. Furthermore, there is overwhelming historical evidence that only a party that has at least 30% of eligible voters prepared to support it by either joining it or donating money to it is viable in the long run. Therefore, it is unlikely that an education party is viable in the long run.
The reasoning in the journalist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument fails to consider that
1. Some of those who said they were willing to donate money to an education party might not actually do so if such a party were formed.
2. an education party could possibly be viable with a smaller base than is customarily needed.
3. the 16% of eligible voters prepared to donate money to an education party might donate almost as much money as a party would ordinarily expect to get if 30% of eligible voters contributed.
4. a party needs the appropriate support of at least 30% of eligible voters in order to be viable and more than half of all eligible voters support the idea of an education party
5. some of the eligible voters who would donate money to an eduction party might not be prepared to join such a party.
Answer (5). why? it looks like to strengthen the argument.
看了半天，起初也觉得是strenghen，后来终于想明白了。
为方便理解，去掉%。
我们反过来想，如果所有捐款人都准备入党，则16完全在26里了，那么准备入党人和捐款人的总数就是26，达不到30，argument就成立。
如果捐款人有8个入党，8个不入党，则入党人还是26个（26是恒量），除了26个入党，还有8个捐款，故有34个人要么捐款要么入党。
应该说，捐款但是不入党的人数越多，则argument越vulnerable。
emm, sounds reasonable.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |