The author concludes that the transit company should either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations in order to attract more commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there. The evidence to support this conclusion is that the commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections, while commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. At the first glance, this argument is plausible, but further consideration views that the evidence to support the conclusion is insufficient, which makes the conclusion vulnerable.
To begin with, this argument is based on the assumption that to reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the parking fee will help to increase the number of commuters to ride the shuttle. This assumption is weakened when another explanation as compelling as the original is offered. Fewer commuters to ride bus may have been caused by some other reasons other than the present bus fares and parking fees. If the route the shuttle buses pass by is not convenient for most of commuters who live far away from the bus station and, to get to the bus station will take them a lot of precious morning time in a workday, then this reason may well be the result of the current situation that fewer commuters to ride bus to the subway station. So, inconvenient route would offer a good alternative explanation that would weaken the original explanation.
Furthermore, the author provides two options in order to achieve the goal and says either of them will be imposed. This optional choice is groundless. Imagine a husband and a wife with a car who work in the different districts. The wife takes subway for work because her office is near the situation while the husband will drive because his office is not only far away from the subway station but also take the different direction from his wife’s. So, there could a picture that every morning, the husband will drop the wife at the subway station and then drive to work alone. Thus, either of the two options provided by the author doesn’t affect them at all. Just take into consideration that how many families would have the exact situations in town. Would this explain the paradox that the commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections, while commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume? Therefore, the author’s optional choices are quite weakened.
“Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations.
The author concludes that the transit company should either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations in order to attract more commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there. The evidence to support this conclusion is that the commuters' use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections, while commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. At the first glance, this argument is plausible, but further consideration views that the evidence to support the conclusion is insufficient, which makes the conclusion vulnerable.
To begin with, this argument is based on the assumption that to reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the parking fee will help to increase the number of commuters to ride the shuttle. This assumption is weakened when another explanation as compelling as the original is offered. Fewer commuters to ride bus may have been caused by some other reasons other than the present bus fares and parking fees. If the route the shuttle buses pass by is not convenient for most of commuters who live far away from the bus station and, to get to the bus station will take them a lot of precious morning time in a workday, then this reason may well be the result of the current situation that fewer commuters to ride bus to the subway station. So, inconvenient route would offer a good alternative explanation that would weaken the original explanation.
其实你的第一点就是原论证“忽略他因”，如果你能写出来就更好了。
其实你的第一点就是原论证“忽略他因”，如果你能写出来就更好了。
Furthermore, the author provides two options in order to achieve the goal and says either of them will be imposed. This optional choice is groundless. Imagine a husband and a wife with a car who work in the different districts. The wife takes subway for work because her office is near the situation while the husband will drive because his office is not only far away from the subway station but also take the different direction from his wife’s. So, there could a picture that every morning, the husband will drop the wife at the subway station and then drive to work alone. Thus, either of the two options provided by the author doesn’t affect them at all. Just take into consideration that how many families would have the exact situations in town. Would this explain the paradox that the commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections, while commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume? Therefore, the author’s optional choices are quite weakened.
这里你似乎使用特利来论证，应该没有问题，但要注意特例不能太过特殊。
这里你似乎使用特利来论证，应该没有问题，但要注意特例不能太过特殊。
In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing because the author oversimplifies both the affecting factors and the possible solutions. To strength the argument, the author needs to take more reasons into consideration and determine the effective solution that would bring about great increase of the commuters to ride buses.建议再多看看范文。加油
"其实你的第一点就是原论证“忽略他因”，如果你能写出来就更好了。"
这句话我不太明白？能不能给个提示？什么是写出来？你是说我这一段写的有问题还是只是少了一句话呢？谢谢
"其实你的第一点就是原论证“忽略他因”，如果你能写出来就更好了。"
这句话我不太明白？能不能给个提示？什么是写出来？你是说我这一段写的有问题还是只是少了一句话呢？谢谢
就是把话说出来
比如:
The speaker commits a fallacy of ignoring other reasons, which might lead to the same consequence.
仅仅举个例子，也就是说，说句套话。
谢谢
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |