- UID
- 806125
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-9-11
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
第一次作 ARGUMENT,完全不熟識,求批改.................
The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner. Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels.
Based on unwarranted assumptions and alleged evidences, the author of the argument contends that the abated traffic of shoppers in Central Plaza should be attributed to the increasing popularity of skateboarding among the plaza. To substantiate his claim, he cited comments from the store owner in Central Plaza about the augmented numbers of skateboarding users and the associated negative impacts on sales volume. Moreover, the author also correlated the more frequently happened incidences of vandalism and discarding of garbage with skateboarding users. Finally, the author suggests that in order to revive the sales volume, prohibition in the using of skateboarding inside the plaza is a necessary act. At the first glance, the argument is well-presented and with sufficient evidences. However, when subjects the argument to close scrutiny, many logical flaws are manifested.
First and foremost, the author assumes that the decreasing traffic of shoppers is the effect of increasing prevalence of skateboarding is invalid and unjustified. Even though the two events presented simultaneously, no causal relationship can be inferred. The author cannot neglect the possibility that the two events can just fortuitously happen around the same time. In order to acclaim causal relationship, all other possible alternative explanations have to be ruled out. Obviously, the author is in no attempt to provide any other explanations that might contribute to the decreased traffic of shoppers beside the popular use of skateboarding. Though can never be assured, it is highly possible that Central Plaza is just merely in decadence. The decreased shoppers can be attributed to the decrepit decoration or old-fashioness of the products in retail. Still, the broader, more general role factors should also be taken into account. For instance, it might be possible that the whole region or even the whole nation is experiencing economic recession. People are just losing their buying powers gradually and therefore lead to the reduced numbers of shoppers in Central Plaza.
In addition, the author also makes unwarranted association between the use of skateboarding and destruction of the inner environment of the plaza. Apparently, the author has not cited any empirical evidences which can suggest there is truly such a linkage. Without any empirical evidences, the association author suggested is extremely dubious. More possibly, it just reflects the personal stereotype and proclivity of the author therefore is highly invalid. Even it is true that some skateboarders have elevated rate of vandalism, apparently not all the people who commit vandalism are skateboarders.
In sum, all the evidences that the author provided to justify the act of prohibition in skateboarding using within the plaza are unjustified. Therefore, it is almost unlikely to prove that such prohibition would be an effective measure to rekindle the sales volume and shoppers traffic. In order to genuinely justify the author’s claim, it is necessary for him to provide alternative explanations and subsequently rule out all of them. Moreover, empirical evidences suggesting association between destruction of inner environment of plaza and skateboarding are also in need.
|
|