这是我第一次写AA,30分钟结束时还在写最后一句结尾,汗~~下次会先把结尾key上去的~~
第一次写,只有500词。写的不好大家请批评指正。谢谢!
AA 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." 'Discuss how well reasoned,.etc.
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.
|