还有9天考 Argument162Orchestra 球拍！！谢谢大家了

mikezidane

Argument162 交响乐团明年能否不靠政府给钱自己运营
攻击点
1个人资助是否能持续
2高音乐会tendency不意味着高收入
3提高票价是否能让观众还来


The argument is well presented yetfar-fetched. It lays a claim that eliminating the funding for Orchestra fromnext year, the orchestra will continue to flourish. The argument is in effectunreasonable due to several flaws such as whether the private contribution cangrow next year, does the high tendency of concerts brings high revenue, andwill the audiences be cool with the rising price.  These logical fallacious can be diagnosedafter a close scrutiny, albeit they may appear plausible at a cursory glance.



To start with, a threshold problem in theargument that the author should answer exactly will the donation continues formore years. The private contribution does proved to be helpful, but it istotally possible that the donators turn to other projects next year, let's say,the hospitals and schools. This will be a catastrophe for the orchestra whichused to be struggling financially. Without providing exact evidence of thefact, the author's claim is dubious at best.

In spite of the donation, the statementmaintains ill-conceived. Profit is a function of both revenue and expense.Unduly emphasize the high tendency of concert which means high revenue dose notnecessary prove that orchestra earn money form concerts, maybe the costs of thehigh quality which attracts people will cost more than the ticket revenues, theorchestra has to make up for the money themselves spent. The failure of authorto show the orchestra really benefits economically compromises the credence ofthe argument.

Even assuming that the orchestra truly earnsa lot through the concert, a significant problem lies in the proposal that willthe policy of raising the price of next year's ticket attract the audiences.The local residences will be reluctant to spend more money for enjoying a sameconcert next year perhaps. If they abandon the plan to buy the ticket and turnfor libraries and cinemas, the orchestra will suffer heavily. So adopting theauthor's proposal might undermine, rather than benefit, the whole statement.

It retrospect, it seemsprecipitous for the author to jump to the conclusion based on a series ofproblematic premises. To dismiss the specter of implausible in the argument,the author should provide satisfying answers for questions as the detail aboutthe private contribution, the profits of concerts, and the numbers of audiencewho will buy the ticket next year. After all, feckless attempts with a falliblemethod can be nothing but a fool's errand. Thus only by grasping the gist ofargument can the author deduce a convincible conclusion.  

竹林中人

你对质疑点的论述我觉得不够丰富，主要是第一点。我觉得可以加上一点是政府资助占整个的花费的比例是很大还是很小

mikezidane

嗯  的确是这样的 谢谢指导 ！！！ 斑竹我现在时间非常紧 好不容易在规定时间写完  怎么再最后几天里面再提提速啊 还有9天

竹林中人

坚持每天各写一篇吧，然后修改，掐时间，只有对自己的写作套路熟悉了速度自然提上来，然后写的时候可以先写开头结尾和英文提纲，然后填充中间内容，这样也许快些

mikezidane

嗯 好的 多谢了 ！