AA89，问问底子

还有9天考了，贴上一篇AA。望大家拍砖，帮忙评估一下大概能有几分？

438字/28分钟

The following is taken from an editorial in a local newspaper.

"Over the past decade, the price per pound of citrus fruit has increased substantially. Eleven years ago, Megamart charged 5 cents apiece for lemons, but today it commonly charges over 30 cents apiece. In only one of these last eleven years was the weather unfavorable for growing citrus crops. Evidently, then, citrus growers have been responsible for the excessive increase in the price of citrus fruit, and strict pricing regulations are needed to prevent them from continuing to inflate prices."

To bolster his assertion that strict pricing regulations are
needed to prevent the citrus growers from continuing to inflate prices, the
author reasons that in only one of these last eleven years was the weather
unfavorable for growing citrus crops. Meanwhile, he also points out that citrus
peanuts have been responsible for the excessive increase in the price of citrus
fruit, and he presumes that reguations or policies can prevent these growers
from influencing the increasing prices. This seemingly well-supported argument,
however, in my estimation, is ill-founded. The following paragraphs will explore
its paradox.

To begin with, without substantiating that all other things are
comparable, or that, as time passes and focus differs, the backgrounds on citrus
raising have remained the same, the arguer unfairly pronounces that weather
conditions and fruit growers are the only two factors in assessing price. While
the condition of climate or weather and the altitude of the farmers may appear
to be empirical elements in determing the fruit price, other scenarios, such as
the soaring costs of agriculture equipment or the rocketing price of pesticide,
if true, would help to explain the inflate prices of citrus.

Additionally, the argument inolves a vague premise that
exercising these regulations will result in decreasing the prices. However, the
premise is gratuitous because the arguer provides no evidence to support it. Let
us consider that if the policies is insufficient or not fully enforced, what
will the results be?

In the third place, the evidence the author cites is fragile:
one example is rarely adequate to construct such generalization. Only if the
author is able to show us that Magamart is typical of all fruit markets, can the
generalization that the price per pound of citrus fruit has increased
substantially be thoroughly waranted. In fact, on such limited base, no sound
generalization can be reached at all.

Last but not least, there lies an analogy deficiency in the
argument: the correlaton of yearly price increase may be coincidental. The
author unfairly suggests that the princeple of last 11 years's citrus price
growth is applicable to forecast today's fruit price, without verifying all
other things relevant to the fruit are equal.

In conclusion, the argument, though plausible at first glance,
is delicate and of no cogency. To deeper convince the readers, the authore
should rule out other factors in determing the harvest of the citrus; to better
support the conclusion, the arguer ought to strengthen the enforcement and the
effectiveness of these reguations; to further solidify the argument, the
illustrator could cite more market examples. In a word, only with more rational
reasoning can the arguement be more persuasive.