最近刚开始练写argument,请大家指点一下啊！
52. The following editorial appeared in the Elm City paper.
“The construction last year of a shopping mall in downtown Oak City was a mistake. Since the mall has opened, a number of local businesses have closed, and the downtown area suffers from an acute parking shortage, and arrests for crime and vagrancy have increased in the nearby Oak City Park. Elm City should pay attention to the example of the Oak City mall and deny the application to build a shopping mall in Elm City.”(新题)
The arguer concludes that Elm City should pay attention to the example of the Oak City and deny the application to build a shopping mall in Elm City. In support of the conclusion, the arguer cites that the construction of a shopping mall in O City has led to several disadvantages, such as failures of local businesses, parking shortage and the increase of arrests for crime and vagrancy. However, based on such ill-considered evidence, the argument is well-presented but not well-reasoned.
First of all, the arguer fallaciously establishes a causal relationship between the shopping mall and a sequence of problems just because the
former occurs before the latter. However, other possibilities that contributed to the outcomes may exist. For example, the local businesses that have closed were low in efficiency, high in cost and obsolete in technology and sure to be supplanted by other rivals. Also, the acute parking shortage might caused by a sharp rise of the number of automobiles in O City or a shrink of the parking place. At the same time, the arrests for crime and vagrancy have surged because a lack of police or effective monitors. In absence of such concerns, the arguer cannot safely jump to the conclusion.
Second, the arguer forgets to list out some possible advantages brought by the shopping mall. Even if the establishment of the mall really results in such social problems, there is no guarantee that the construction was a mistake. It is probably that since the mall has opened, the tax income of the city has increased, shops next to the mall have created a high profit and residents felt more convenient. Thus, the benefit that the mall has brought about is much greater than the loss it has led to. Just considering one aspect of a fact, the arguer cannot convince me completely.
Third, the argument is based on a false analogy that events happened in O City will also happen in E city. In fact, there is much dissimilarity between the two cities. Perhaps, new parking places have yet been built in E City and effective laws have just been passed to protect local businesses. What is more, the government has invested a lot to supervise the crime and to build houses for vagrants. So the problems exist in O City will be avoided in E City, and the arguer's conclusion is untenable.
To sum up, the conclusion that E City should deny to build a shopping mall is ill-founded. To strengthen it, the arguer should rule out the possibilities responsible
for the problems in O City and concern
about the advantage and disadvantage that the mall has created. Also, if the arguer had
proved that there is no difference between the two cities, the argument would have been more rational and convincing.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |