第一个问题:答案转自孙远讲义 hope it help.
........This argument commits two critical fallacies.
In the first place, this argument commits a fallacy of causal
oversimplification. The arguer assumes that an increase in the supply of
cocaine is sufficient to bring about an increase in its use. While the
supply of cocaine may be one of the contributing factors to its use, it is
insufficient. The presumption required to substantiate this view is that
drug users are not particular about which drugs they use, so that if
marijuana and heroin are not available, they will switch to whatever drug
is available--cocaine in this case. This assumption is not reasonable.
Marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are not alike in their effects on users; nor
are they alike in the manner in which they are ingested or in their
addictive properties. The view that drug users’ choice of drugs is simply
a function of supply overlooks these important differences. Besides, the
argument is self-contradictory. If it were true, as stated by the arguer,
that cocaine trafficking is both safer than the bulky marijuana and more
profitable than heroin that has a small market, this fact alone would have
motivated the drug traffickers to switch to cocaine. In this case, the
government enforcement effort should not be held accountable for the rise
in the use of cocaine.
In the second place, the arguer fails to provide the necessary information
based on which we can evaluate the comprehensive effect of the government's
action. The background of the incident is that the drug abuse has now
become ever more serious a social problem than anytime in the past. And
this is what motivated the government actions against drug trafficking in
the first place. We, therefore, can reasonably assume that before the
government took actions the abuse of all major popular drugs had been on
the trend of increase, including the use of cocaine. The newspaper
editorial, however, only mentions the observed increase in the use of
cocaine while failing to provide any information to specify the current
increase and that before the government strengthened its drug contraction
efforts. We thus cannot compare the patterns of change in this aspect
before and after the government actions in order to reach any valid
conclusion about the impact of the government actions on the use of
cocaine.
If the trend of increase in cocaine abuse has been slowed down, or if the
total amount of illegal drugs in the market has been significantly reduced,
even though the absolute use of cocaine is still increasing, we would say
that the government efforts in apprehending drug traffickers are somehow
effective.
In conclusion, the arguer oversimplifies the cause-and-effect relationship
between government's increased efforts and the observed increase in the
illegal use of cocaine. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have
to provide evidence that the government's enforcement efforts have directly
led to the increased supply and use of cocaine. To better evaluate the
argument, we would need more information about the trend of increase in the
use of cocaine and other drugs before and after the government's actions.
2nd.224范文的论点
1、Assumes that color and blackwhite are mutually exclusive alternatives,but it's not the case. The either/or choice doesn't exist at all.
2、The evidence provide is insufficient to support the conclusion that working in color is necessary in order to gain on advantage.
3、the fact that more kinds of color film are available than black-and-white film accomplishes little to support the argument
4、Ignore the other factors that may be more important in determing success in photography
3rd.
1、The views expressed by the arguer are conflict and insistent with each other. The logic relationship refered by "Moreover" is problematic.
2 Neglect other factors that may be helpful in the situation mentioned.such as better time management of scientist, and better allocation of time between couples so that preschool-age children can spend a significant portion of each day with a parent.....There must be alternatives to solve this problem without sacrifice of requirement on career advancement.
3 The assumption, either most of scientists in the institution have preschool-baby, or most of them are scientists couple, is gratuitous, so more evidence needed to be shown to support the suggeestions of the arguer.
欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |