Argument 3( Central Plaza 和skateboarding的~~）求拍！

馨馨Emma · 发表于 2012-11-2 20:33:06

In the argument, the editor from a Central Plaza store suggests that skateboarding should be prohibited in Central Plaza. To support his/her point, the arguer cites the evidence that in past two years fewer shoppers patronized Central Plaza while more vandalism took place there. However, close scrutiny of these facts mentioned, reveals that they lend little credibility to the argument.

The threshold problem with this argument is that the author falsely establish a causal relationship between two thins happening at the same time. The speaker contends that it is the popularity of skateboarding that have caused the decreasing number of people shopping in Central Plaza. However, the author fails to provide any evidence to substantiate that this is the case, at least not in this argument. It is entirely possible that the reason why fewer customer go to Central Plaza in the past 2 years is that the goods there is not competitive compared with shops elsewhere. Perhaps goods offered by Central Plaza are way too much expensive and their quality is fairly questionable. Without ruling out this and other possible explanations for the decreasing number of shoppers going to Central Plaza, the editor can not confidently draw any conclusion based on it.

The same logical problem also appears in the author's reasoning of a relation between the increasing amount of vandalism and the increasing popularity of skateboarding. The mere fact that the two things happen at the same time is scant evidence that one of them is actually responsible for another. Many other alternative explanations can be offered here to question this argument. Perhaps because fewer people go to Central Plaza，the number of cleaners coming to sweep this area decrease as a result, thereby leaving more litter in the plaza. It is equally possible that during the past 2 years, the government paid less attention to the public awareness of environmental protection. Any of this scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the editor's claim the it is those people skateboarding in Central Plaza that are culpable of vandalism and dropping litter.

The final problem in this argument is that no evidence is offered to guarantee that the desired result will be achieved once the recommendation is put into practice.Chances are high that even though skateboarding is prohibited in Central Plaza, the business there will remain in its current low level. Even if I were to concede that skateboarding is the reason why people do not go to Central Plaza, I am not convinced that the prohibition, alone, will suffice to bring the Plaza to its former glory. Perhaps certain other course of action have to be taken simultaneously--for instance, making some discounts or promotions--to make central Plaza more attractive and competitive, thereby returning to its previously high levels.

To sum up, the argument is logically unsound as it stands. To better assess the strength of this argument, I would like to know---perhaps by way of a survey--why fewer people go to the Central Plaza in the past two yeas. Also useful would be the information that whether or not those who go skateboarding in the plaza are responsible for vandalism and litter.

普渡哥 · 发表于 2012-11-3 09:39:13

第一个理由好像已经包含了第二个理由，大家仔细看看两段的第一句。

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-11-3 14:59:21

In the argument, the editor from a Central Plaza
store suggests that skateboarding should be prohibited in Central Plaza.To support his/her point, the arguer cites the evidence that in past two yearsfewer shoppers patronized Central Plaza while more vandalism took place there.However, close scrutiny of these facts mentioned, reveals that they lend littlecredibility to the argument.
instruction中有“discusswhat questions would need to be answered”，所以在下结论的时候需要作出回应。
The thresholdproblem with this argument is that the author falsely establishes acausal relationship between two thins happening at the same time.这里前后调换下，先说题目的依据，在指出问题The speaker contends that it is the popularity of skateboarding that havecaused the decreasing number of people shopping in Central Plaza. However, theauthor fails to provide any evidence（你觉得需要什么样的evidence呢，最好能具体举出一个） tosubstantiate that this is the case, at least not in this argument. It isentirely possible that the reason why fewer customer go to Central Plazain the past 2 years is that the goods there is not competitive compared withshops elsewhere. Perhaps goods offered by Central Plazaare way too much expensive and their quality is fairly questionable. Withoutruling out this and other possible explanations for the decreasing number ofshoppers going to Central Plaza, the editor can notconfidently draw any conclusion based on it.

The same logicalproblem also appears in the author's reasoning of a relation between theincreasing amount of vandalism and the increasing popularity of skateboarding.The mere fact that the two things happen at the same time is scant evidence thatone of them is actually responsible for another.这两话是多余的，直接指出人家哪里不靠谱，人家犯了什么样的错误，Many other alternative explanations can be offered here to question thisargument. Perhaps because fewer people go to Central Plaza，thenumber of cleaners coming to sweep this area decrease as a result, therebyleaving more litter in the plaza. It is equally possible that during the past 2years, the government paid less attention to the public awareness ofenvironmental protection. Any of this scenario, if true, would serve toundermine the editor's claim the it is those people skateboarding in CentralPlaza that are culpable of vandalism and dropping litter.

The final problem in this argument is that noevidence is offered to guarantee that the desired result will be achieved oncethe recommendation is put into practice.Chances are high that even thoughskateboarding is prohibited in Central Plaza, the business there will remain inits current low level. Even if I were to concede that skateboarding is thereason why people do not go to Central Plaza, I am not convincedthat the prohibition, alone, will suffice to bring the Plaza to its formerglory. Perhaps certain other course of action have to be takensimultaneously--for instance, making some discounts or promotions--to make central Plaza more attractive and competitive,thereby returning to its previously high levels.

To sum up, the argument is logically unsound as itstands. To better assess the strength of this argument, I would like toknow---perhaps by way of a survey--why fewer people go to the Central Plazain the past two yeas. Also useful would be the information that whether or notthose who go skateboarding in the plaza are responsible for vandalism andlitter.语言上的问题不大，但argu的推理分析做的不够好，指出问题之后，需要分析，为什么不好，比如题目根据某个依据就认为怎么样，还需要什么样的前提或者证据或者需要明确什么问题或者是依据本身是不科学的，然后在说明如果没有这些前提证据……，会有什么样的误解或者得到其他的结论等，能具体说明一点就好。最后再指出其他可能导致题目结论的原因。

馨馨Emma · 发表于 2012-11-3 21:40:21

谢谢版主！！我会继续改进的~~

[作文互改] Argument 3( Central Plaza 和skateboarding的~~）求拍！

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

[作文互改] Argument 3( Central Plaza 和skateboarding的~~） 求拍！

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

[作文互改] Argument 3( Central Plaza 和skateboarding的~~）求拍！