AAA001 <-FENG考后上传，以供参考讨论

In this argument, the author suggests replacing decorative plants on the Main Street with artificial plants in order to save money. This conclusion is built on the assumption that to solve the problem of wilted plants, the city should either contract for more frequent watering or plant artificial flowers. In addition, the author points out that turning to artificial flowers can save money in the long term. Public support is also cited as a reason to make the switch. Plausible at first sight, this argument actually rests on some partially interpreted evidence and a series of unsubstantiated assumptions. A careful examination as below would reveal how untenable the arguer’s claim is.  

In face of the problem, the author unfairly presents us with a false dilemma: he asserts that the city should either contract for two waterings a week or plant artificial flowers. However, this is not necessarily the case. The author fails to consider and rule out other factors that might account for the wilting of the flowers. For example, perhaps the weather was abnormally scorching last summer, resulting in the withering of the plants. Yet there is no indication that this kind of weather will continue this year. Consequently, even without any measures taken, the plants can still live well this year. Or perhaps lack of watering is not the reason for the plants to wilt. They may have died of diseases caused by certain pests. In that case, spraying pesticides to the soil might turn out to be a better solution.  

Another dubious assertion the author makes in support of planting artificial flowers is that replacing real plants with artificial ones will save money in the long run despite the high initial costs. However, the credibility of such an assertion has yet to be established, especially when the author fails to mention the subsequent costs of maintaining. One obvious rebuttal to the authors’ reasoning is that these artificial flowers might fade in color and thus have to be replaced in merely one year. It’s also likely that hiding cleaners to clean the dust of plastic flowers demands an exorbitant sum of money. In either case, the validity of the assertion made by the author is put into question.

Moreover, the survey result that the author cites to demonstrate public support hardly suffices to buttress this claim. For one thing, no information is given as to how broad the survey was and exactly how the survey was conducted. Therefore, it is hard to assess the reliability of the survey result. Moreover, since the survey is limited only to readers of a certain magazine, we have good reason to doubt whether the survey is representative enough to reflect the general attitude of all the citizens as a whole. For another, even if we accept the result, still the claim is questionable, since the survey only shows that the public find the city wasting money. This fact alone does no necessarily mean that the citizens consider real flowers a waste of money. Nor does it warrant the assumption that they take artificial planting as an economical alternative way.

To sum up, it is imprudent for the author to suggest planting artificial plants solely on the basis of the evidence presented. To make his argument more convincing, the author would have to explore the real reason for the withering of the plants and thus take into consideration other possible methods. Furthermore, the author should provide additional evidence to demonstrate that employing artificial planting is in fact a more economical way and that the public are genuinely in support of the suggestion.