Argument67 求修改 谢谢!

peepul

"Despite its downtown location, the Rialto Movie Theater, a local institution for five decades, must make big changes or close its doors forever. It should follow the example of the new Apex Theater in the mall outside of town. When the Apex opened last year, it featured a video arcade, plush carpeting and seats, and a state-of-the-art sound system. Furthermore, in a recent survey, over 85 percent of respondents reported that the high price of newly released movies prevents them from going to the movies more than five times per year. Thus, if the Rialto intends to hold on to its share of a decreasing pool of moviegoers, it must offer the same features as Apex."
提纲:1.错误因果:A的奢华的特点是否带来盈利？即使盈利，是不是仅仅因为这些特点？
2.错误类比:未考虑A和R两地的其他因素而草率的将其进行类比。
3数据调查类错误：数据基数，被调查者的代表性
Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author recommends that Rialto Movie Theater, a local institution for five decades should follow the example of the new Apex Theater. To substantiate the conclusion, the author points out evidence that when opened last year, Apex featured a video arcade, plush carpeting and seats, and a state-of-the-art sound system. In addition, a result of a recent survey is cited to support the analysis. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, however, a further reflection reveals that it omit several crucial concerns which should be addressed to substantiate the conclusion. In my point of view, the author suffers from cause and effect, insufficient investigation and analysis, and false analogy logical flaws.
Firstly, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the feature of Apex and how it holds on to its share of the pool of moviegoers. What’s more, no evidence in the argument suggests that, it is the features of a video arcade, plush carpeting and seats, and a state-of-the-art sound system that bring about success and actual profit. Thus, this argument is unacceptable unless there is compelling evidence to support the connection between the luxurious equipment and the movie theater’s success. Perhaps, for example, the success and profit of Apex, if there is any, result from the advantage of location and its inner management.
Secondly, even assuming these sumptuous features bring actual profit and success to Apex, the author’s recommendation relies on what might be a poor analogy between Apex and M. The analogy falsely depends on the assumption that all scenarios between the two are similar, such as, the consumption level of the residents, citizens’ consciousness, and even the policy of local governments. However, it is entirely possible that situations of the two share no common ground. In short, without accounting for important possible differences between Apex and M, the arguer cannot reasonably prove the proposed method will help M to hold on to its share of a decreasing pool of moviegoers.

Finally, unless the surveyor had sampled a sufficient number of the residents and did so randomly across the entire spectrum, the result of the survey is not reliable to gauge whether the pool of moviegoers is decreasing. The proportion of the respondents in itself does not ensure the representativeness. For example, if the sample only included the poor and the students, it would not doubt that they want to save money for other purpose. Or if the samples account for only a little percentage of the citizens, the result will also be meaningless.

To sum up, the author fails to demonstrate his claim that offerring the same features as Apex will help M to hold on to its share of a decreasing pool of moviegoers, because the evidences cited in the analysis do not lend strong support to substantiate that it is the features of a video arcade, plush carpeting and seats, and a state-of-the-art sound system that brings about success and actual profit. Additionally, the author would have to what the author maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information with regard to the situation of the two places. Also would be useful is the information about the carriage of the investigation. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

普渡哥

To sum up, the author fails to demonstrate hi claim that offer the same features as Apex will help M to hold on to its share of a decreasing pool of moviegoers,

hi 应该是his

普渡哥

理由找的挺好的。

peepul

版主看得真仔细 多谢啦!