诚心征人批改AA - ChaseDream

The author of the argument assumed the
increase of the city’s crime rates is primarily attributed to the increase of
violence in movies. Therefore, the legislators are justified as people not
concerned with this issue by not having passed the bill to prevent or limit
violence in movies published. However, the conclusion drawn above depends on assumptions
that are flawed in the following two aspects.

First of all, the assumption that increase
of violence in movies alone has caused the increase of crime rates. However,
this line of reasoning is weak because other factors could be much more
significant. For example, the rising unemployment rates in the city can cause
turbulences in social security because more jobless people would perhaps steal
money or rob for living; the increasing number of adolescents who become more
declined to commit a crime due to lack of education or proper supervision; or
even a immigrant rush to the city has increase the possibility that former
criminals who are recently released from prison have visited the city.
Therefore, the oversimplified assumption that increase of violence in movies
has contributed to the increased crime rate is imprudent and should be
seriously questioned.

Even though the increase of violence in
movies has partially caused the rising crime rate, the conclusion drawn by the
author that the city’s legislators are not concerned about this issue is also
questionable. The author depends on the assumption that only majority votes
received to pass the bill can demonstrate legislators’ concerns about increase
of the city’ crime rate. However, the basis of this assumption is insufficient.
Legislators may be concerned about this issue, but the bill that the city much
censor certain movies or must limit admission to persons who are over
20-year-old can be questionable. The argument simply presumes that citizens,
especially youngsters are more likely to imitate the violence in the movies and
therefore become more inclined to commit a crime in real life. This reasoning
is weak because people don’t usually demonstrate a behavior adopted from movies
which are different from life in reality. The bill which can not receive a
majority vote has problems itself and therefore cannot be the most effective
way to prevent the city from having a upward trend of crime rate. So the
legislators who are concerned the crime rate issue may not necessarily consider
the bill calling for censoring movies or limit access to youngsters.

To sum up, this
argument is weak due to lacking solid assumption that that the increase of
violence in the movies is the direct reason of increasing crime rate and the
bill can therefore effectively reduce the crime rates by censoring certain
movies or limiting admission to persons over 21 years of age. In order to make
the argument logically sound and complete, the author has to rule out other
obvious causes of the increase of city’s crime rate and evaluate the
effectiveness of bill calling for actions so that the legislators must further
consider passing the bill.