AA的七宗罪,至少用上两个? 比如下面的题目,Firstly, gratuitous assumption ...; Secondly, the fallacy of "all things are equal" ... 但其实看起来问题都是一样,或者说怎么区分七宗罪? Hippocrene Plumbing Supply recently opened a wholesale outlet in the location once occupied by the Cumquat Café. Hippocrene has apparently been quite successful there because it is planning to open a large outlet in a nearby city. But the Cumquat Café, one year after moving to its new location, has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year's. Clearly, the former site is a better business location, and the Cumquat Café has made a mistake in moving to its new address.~ My Answer: In the argument, the quthor concluds that Cumquat Cafe made a mistake in moving to its new address. To support his conclusion, the author points out that the location change caused Cumquat Cafe businees drop. Further more, he also assumes that... At first glance, the author's argument appears to be somewhat convicing, but further reflections reveals that it omits some important concerns that should be addressed to substantiated the claim. In the first place, the author falsely rests on a gratuitous assumption that the location is the only cause. However, the assumption is questionable because the author provides no evidence to support it. The author has obviously neglected some other facts that might contribute to the bad performance of Cumquat Cafe. It's likely that, the customer's preference has changed, but the Cumquat Cafe hasn't caught the information. The menu has been out of date. Therefore, without ruling such possibility, the conclustion is unwarranted. In the second place, the author commits the fallacy of "all things are equal". The author assums that the background condition have remained the same, but maybe Cumquat Cafe faced much more challenge from competitor after it moved to new location, because the competitors learned quickly and grasped many opportunities that belong to Cumquat Cafe before. In conclustion, since the author commits the above mentioned logical mistakes and fails to consider the whole situation comprehensively, his ideas should not be accepted. The evidence cited in the analysis is too weak to lend strong support to what the author claims. To strengthen the argument, the author must convince us that all the conditions remain the same except for location change.
|