- UID
- 621247
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-4-3
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
The following appeared in the letters-to-the-editor section of a local newspaper.
“Muscle Monthly, a fitness magazine that regularly features pictures of bodybuilders using state-of-the-art exercise machines, frequently sells out, according to the owner of Skyview Newsstand. To help maximize fitness levels in our town’s residents, we should, therefore, equip our new community fitness center with such machines.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
===============================
The author concludes that the town shouldequip its new community fitness center with a certain kind of exercise machinesin order to maximize fitness levels in its residents. The causal relationship between such machinesand the willingness of people to do exercise is based on the observation that afitness magazine which regularly posts pictures of these machines often sellsout. And the observation comes from theowner of one magazine store. Theargument is not convincing as it fails to consider a couple of key aspects.
First of all, the popularity of themagazine doesn't necessarily mean that people like that kind of machines. The bodybuilders, who are also in thepictures according to the argument, are very likely the reason that the readerslike this magazine. In other words, themagazine could still sell out even if the "state-of-the-art" machineswere replaced by other kinds of exercise machines in the pictures.
Secondly, the fact that the magazine sellsout in one newsstand is not sufficient to prove the magazine has a large numberof readers. It is possible that thesales data of this magazine in other newsstands are poor. It is also possible that this magazine oftensells out because its circulation is very small.
In addition, even we accept the assumptionthat those who buy Muscle Monthly will go to the new fitness center because ofthis machine, we still cannot draws a conclusion that the fitness levels willbe maximized. On the one hand, the fansof this magazine and the machine could already do exercise frequently. Attracting them to the new fitness centerwon't help increase the fitness level of the whole population. On the other hand, the argument provides nofurther information about the functionality and the validity of thesemachines. If the target users of thismachine are exercisers of advanced level, they won't help much in the goalconcerned by the argument.
Since the author has not taken these keyfactors into account, the conclusion of the argument is not acceptable. The author needs to provide more evidencethat most local residents can be attracted to the fitness center because of the"state-of-the art" machine, and that these machines, together withother equipments and courses in the new fitness center, can effectively helppeople build body shape. If so, theargument will be much more cogent. |
|