- UID
- 827029
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-11-6
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
argument 7
正文：
In this argument the speaker recommends that, in order to attract more customers and better compete with Regal Books, Monarch Books should discontinue the children’s book section to make space for the café. To support his argument, the speaker points out that Monarch Books having a large customer base because of its wide selection of books on all subjects. The speaker also cites reports from the most recent nation census indicated a significant decline in the percentage of the population under age ten. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
First of all, the large customer base may because the wide selection of books on all subjects in Monarch Books. It is possibly because of the books in Monarch Books are high qualities when comparing to other Books. Furthermore, even assuming that the qualities of books are the same, the price of the same books in Monarch Books may lower than in other Books. For that matter, customers would better choose Monarch Books than other Books over times.
Secondly, the speaker fails to explain why opening the café would attract more customers when Monarch Books has a large customer base. However, the people who like to go to the book store may not like to drink café. Yet the recommendation contains no evidence that the people who like reading will also like drinking café to support. Lacking such evidence it is equally possible that the number of customers would not increase when opening a café in Monarch Books. In fact, some of them may hate the smell of café.
Thirdly, the census indicated a significant decline in the percentage of the population under age ten doesn’t mean that the circumstance would happen in area of Monarch Books. The decline percentage of under age ten population may strongly happen in other area with the decline may not happen in Monarch Books area even increase. Without thorough survey of the circumstance of age structure in Monarch Books area, the speaker could not conclude that the children’s book section would be less popular.
Finally, even assuming that the percentage of under age ten has declined, the speaker doesn’t point out the value of enlarging other section rather than opening a café. Without survey, the speaker doesn’t know the value of enlarging other section such as Study Aboard section and Fiction section. Until the speaker substantiates that opening café can get more profit than enlarging other section, I remain unconvinced that opening a café in Monarch Books would be a good choice.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. The recommendation would not work until the directors provide clear evidence to explain why Monarch Books has a large customer base and why it result in attracting more customers when opening a café. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to the circumstance that the census indicated in Monarch Books area and the reason why it can get more profit when opening a café rather than enlarging other section.
argument 13
This editorial argues that the effort in Prunty Country last year lowered its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour on all country highways has failed. Therefore Prunty Country should undertake the same king of road improvement project that Bulter Country completed five years ago to improve its roads. To support this argument the editorial’s author points out that the number of accidents has not decrease when the speed limit was reduced. The author also point out that after Butler Country increasing lane widths, resurfacing rough highways and improving visibility at dangerous intersections but stay the speed limit at 55 miles per hour, there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents this past year than there were five years ago. The editorial suffers from several problems, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
First of all, the argument assumes that since the country lower its speed limit, all other factors affecting highway accident rates have remain unchanged. However, the author fails to prove this assume. It is entirely possible the speed limit have reduced the accidents while other factors such as terrible weather, loose legal system caused more accidents. Thus, without considering other factors that can increase the accident rates, it is difficult to accept the conclusion that Prunty’s effort has failed.
Secondly, the author unfairly implies that the limit speed in Butler Country has not served to increase the accident rates in its country. The author provides no evidences that explain the factors caused the lower accident rates are increasing lane widths, resurfacing rough highways, or other policy that improving roads. Furthermore, Butler Country only gave us the data that “reported”, it is entirely possible that the increase rates of accident were not reported. So the author fails to recommend Pruntly to recover the speed limit without prove that the factor lower accident rates in Butler Country is the speed limit but not other factors. And we also should know the truth of reports that from Butler Country.
Thirdly, even assuming that the factors that caused the lower accident rate in Butler Country containing the speed limit, the author fails to give us the evident that the policies in Butler Country are also suit for Pruntly Country. It is possible that the widths of lane in Pruntly are already enough or has wider than the lane in Butler
. Moreover, the road in Pruntly may smooth like a mirror and there are no any dangerous intersections. Without the evidences above, the argument is not convincing enough to recommend Pruntly to recover its speed limit.
In conclusion, the editorial fails to convince me that the effort that Pruntly should emulate Butler Country’s road-safety measures. To strengthen the argument the author must account for all other factors that may influence the accident rates in both counties. To better assess the impact of the new speed limit, I also need to know the truth of datas from Butler and the feasibility of Pruntly emulating Butler’ policies.
argement 33
The author of this memo concludes that there is no necessary for a new electric power plant in the area because it seems that the total electricity demand is not likely to increase in the future. To support this conclusion the author cites the availability of new energy-efficient appliances and systems for homes and the eagerness of area homeowners to conserve energy. However, the argument relies on several doubtful assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
First, several recent surveys may not represent all the people’s minds in area. Without proving that the surveys contains up to three-quarters of all the people in the area and encompass four corners in the area. It is entirely possible that the sample only contains a little people and it only surveys the east or west of the area. If the assumption is true, then the sample lost its representative and it couldn’t mean anything. So, the author should give us the amount of those surveyed and the surveying area which can make us more believe.
Secondly, the author’s conclusion is based on the assumption that the people in the area would actually purchase and install the new technologies. Admittedly, the author points out that the homeowners are likely to conserve energy. Nevertheless, the author fails to prove that the people all have economic capability to afford them.Lacking such evident it is equally possible that most of the people can not afford the new technologies which mean they still use the old technologies that cost more electricity energy.
Finally, even assumes that the people in the area can afford all the new technologies, the author fails to prove that the need of the electricity energy in the area would not increase in the future. The author only points out that the three electric generating plants could met the people’ need in the past 20 years, but he doesn’t give the evident that states the amount of people in the area would not increase and the electric generating plants would not breakdown or exceed the time limit in the future. With the increasing of the amount of people in the area, the need for the electric energy would also increase. So, the author fails to persuade me that the electricity energy would meet the people’s need in the future.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must give me the evident that states the surveys contain up to three-quarters of all the people in the area and encompass four corners in the area. Furthermore, we also need to know the people in the area can afford the new technologies and the need for the electricity energy would not increase with the condition of energy-efficiency of the three current electric power plants.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-12-2 10:33:09
收藏
收藏
楼主
