The argument advocates two actionsto control and reduce crime rates in the cities: (1) to establish a board tocensor certain movies, and (2) to limit violent movie access to people over 21years old. To support this proposal, the arguer cites his observation that thecity crime rates increase in parallel with the rising violent contents inmovies. Additionally, the arguer criticizes the indifference of legislators fornot passing the bill which calls for the above two actions. At first glance,the proposed crime control measures appear to be legitimate, while close examiningreveals that the rationale behind them is beset with logical flows.
Most conspicuously, the argumentrests on the gratuitous assumption of 'more movie violence, more city crimes'. Inthe first place, that these two phenomena occur or are observed at the sametime does not provide any evidence proving that the increased movie violence isconducive to the city crime rate change. May the former be one of the causes ofthe latter, many other reasons could be attributed to crime rate increase, suchas economic slump, massive demographic change, or loosened law system. Unlessit rules out the other factors, the argument cannot conclusively assert that movieviolence gives rise to higher crime rates. Before such a crucial assumption isclosely scrutinized and seamlessly proved, the proposed solution remainssuspect.
In addition, even if we assume the problemis solely brought about by movie violence, the argument is still too flawed inthe following two aspects to be convincing. First, there is no proof in thereport testifying who commits the crimes. If the criminals are all above 21years old, allowing them to have violent movie access equates with giving greenlight to crimes. Second, whether the increased crimes fall into the violencecategory is unclear. Had it not been violent crimes (for instance, economiccrimes), censoring the movies in question does not offer an applicable roadmapto improve the situation. Hence, without understanding the nature of the increasedcrimes, the recommended solution is futile.
Last but not least, the arguer’scriticism towards the legislators is groundless. Once again, he commits asimilar fallacy of causal oversimplification by attributing the failure of abill to the unconcern of legislators. As is known to all, passing a bill callsfor a complex and justifiable process in any lawful society; the fact that the billhas not been endorsed may suggest that the proposed actions comprising the billare flawed. We do not have to go far to realize that this evidence actually underminesthe statement. In conclusion, the argument ishardly sound or persuasive because it leaves several key issues unaddressed.Instead of directly voicing solutions, the argument should carefully analyzethe causes of the crime rate increase, dissects the nature of this problem, andcite compelling evidence before proposing actions and criticizing. Only in thisway, the argument can be substantiated.作者: leoyt 时间: 2010-4-1 14:34
给自己顶下，好像我都没有format好。又改了下，哪位朋友帮着给点意见吧。谢了。
题目 "The following appeared in a newspaper editorial: “As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote.” "
The argument advocates two actions to control and reduce crime rates in the cities: (1) to establish a board to censor certain movies, and (2) to limit violent movie access to people over 21 years old. To support this proposal, the arguer cites his observation that the city crime rates increase in parallel with the rising violent content in movies. Additionally, the arguer criticizes the indifference of legislators for not passing the bill which calls for the above two actions. At first glance, the proposed crime control measures appear to be legitimate, but close examining reveals that the rationale behind them is beset with logical flaws.
Most conspicuously, the argument rests on the gratuitous assumption of “more movie violence, more city crimes”. In the first place, that these two phenomena occur or are observed at the same time does not provide any evidence proving that the increased movie violence is conducive to the city crime rate change. May the former be one of the causes of the latter, many other reasons could be attributed to crime rate increase, such as economic slump, massive demographic change, or loosened law system. Unless it rules out the other factors, the argument cannot conclusively assert that movie violence gives rise to higher crime rates. Before such a crucial assumption is closely scrutinized and seamlessly proved, the proposed solution remains suspect.
In addition, even if we assume the problem is solely brought about by movie violence, the argument is still too flawed in the following two aspects to be convincing. First, there is no proof in the report testifying who commits the crimes. If the criminals are all above 21 years old, allowing them to have violent movie access equates with giving green light to crimes. Second, whether the increased crimes fall into the violence category is unclear. Had it not been violent crimes (for instance, economic crimes), censoring the movies in question does not offer an applicable roadmap to improve the situation. Hence, without understanding the nature of the problem, the recommended solution is futile.
Last but not least, the arguer’s criticism towards the legislators is groundless. Once again, he commits a similar fallacy of causal oversimplification by attributing the failure of a bill to the unconcern of legislators. As is known to all, passing a bill calls for a complex and justifiable process in any lawful society; the fact that the bill has not been endorsed may suggest that the proposed actions comprising the bill are flawed. We do not have to go far to realize that this evidence actually undermines the statement.
In conclusion, the argument is hardly sound or persuasive because it leaves several key issues unaddressed. Instead of directly voicing solutions, the argument should carefully analyze the causes of the crime rate increase, dissect the nature of this problem, and cite compelling evidence before proposing actions and criticizing. Only in this way, the argument can be substantiated.作者: superselina 时间: 2010-4-5 01:33
我刚开始复习作文，不是很有概念。不过我觉得这篇文章有6分的水平了。
想请教一下，AA需要那种开篇结论的结构吗？还是直接开门见山，就一段一个错误的？你的这篇文章显然是有很好的结构的，不过我看OG12上的6分范文，结构倒不是很明显。作者: leoyt 时间: 2010-4-7 12:55
hi Lina, i assume your name is Lina... thanks for your compliment! for the structure, i just played safe. I reviewed different templates, tried to add something of my own and consolidated them to have a "structure". It took me really long to write each AA essay. I published another one a few days, but, unfortunately, no one commented... did I answer your question? keep in touch. cheers, Leo