第一次写AA（011），求拍~

结合了各位NN的模板，写了第一篇AA，鼓起勇气放上来，因为是第一篇，写了一个小时左右，可能字数有点多呃。。我想如果是考试的时候估计要删掉某一段的内容（比如第三个理由去掉）但两个理由会不会不够啊？还有模板的痕迹会不会太重？需不需要讲得具体点，多些实际的东西？

我是菜鸟，请大家尽情地拍~bow~~

This editorial section advocates that the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they vote Montoya out of office and reelecte Varro. The author cites three related facts happened during the first four years that Montoya had served as mayor of the city of San Perdito as grounds for the conclusion. An additional reason provided to support the editorial is that under Varro, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. This argument—appears to be plausible on its face— lacks credibility after close scrutiny of evidences. In the discussion below, I would like to elaborate the main logic flaws of the argument.

  The threshold problem of this argument is that the author commits the fallacy of “all things are equal”. The editorial assumed that in the future the situation in San Perdito will remain fixed, that is to say, under Varro the unemployment rate will decrease and the population will increase. However, absent evidence supports the inference—the fact happened four years ago is neither a sound indicator reflects the changing trend nor a good evidence to draw a conclusion offered in this argument. Four years is sufficient for a significant change take place in the overall economy and market condition. It is probable that in the future the trend will greatly fluctuate or even reverse. Without taking these possibilities into account, the author cannot convince me that the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they reelect Varro.

Another fallacy deserved out attention is that the author engaged in “after this, therefore, because of this” reasoning. The editorial bases on a known correlation between Montoya served as mayor and the population loss as well as unemployment rate increase and claims that the former event is responsible for the latter. The sequence of these events alone amounts to scant evidences of the conclusion. As a matter of fact, it may be only a coincidence that these unpleasant phenomena happened after Montoya took office.

  Finally, it is necessary to point out that the author based his or her claim unfairly on the assumption that the unemployment rate and the population are determined solely by mayor. While mayor is a seemingly important element in determining the two figures, it is hardly the only or even necessarily required element. In fact, more discreet inspection would disclose other crucial factors such as macroeconomy. It is entire possible that in recent four years San Peidito was coincident suffered the economy recession. Another possibility is that Varro enjoyed a stable economy when served as mayor. Hence, without weighing and then eliminating these and other potential causal explanations, it is presumptuous for the author to conclude that voting Montoya out of office and reelecting Varro is the best way to achieve the desire goal.

  To sum up, this argument is of no persuasion as it stands because the cited evidences do not lend support to what the author asserts. Yet, it could be substantiated to provide more solid evidence that the unemployment rate increase and population loss are only because of Montoya, and the conditions will reverse if Varro take office again. In addition, to further bolster the conclusion, the author should furnish the demonstration concerning macroeconomy and other related factors. Accordingly, only with more logical reasoning could this argument turn to be sound and reliable.

其实你可以把“废话”删掉，因为那些不能表达你的思想

评卷人不是傻子，不会给你的模板打高分