各位nn们。。。4天就考了我晕了求解释：关于无因果，gratuitous assumption

manqianchen

我发现我在写argument的时候会分不清错误原因，比如下面的这个题目。作者认为acorn valley学生成绩好的原因是他们wear uniform...这个可以理解为causal relationship (然后我argue使学生成绩好是别的原因)还是 说作者fallacious assume that 他们成绩好的原因是wear uniform...这样的话错位原因就变成了gratuitous assumption...我可以argue作者fails to provide sound evidence to support his claim...

还有。。当作者draw conclusion on bayview的时候，说使bayview 学生好就应该wear uniform..因为acorn 的原因，那我这里说错误原因使false analogy还是gratuitous assumption(作者assume the only difference between bayview and acorn high school is uniforms...) 还是因果不成立？？

我真晕了。。。跪求解释。。。

105. Bayview High School is considering whether to require all of its students to wear uniforms while at school. Students attending Acorn Valley Academy, a private school in town, earn higher grades on average than Bayview students and are more likely to go on to college. Moreover, Acorn Valley reports few instances of tardiness, absenteeism, or discipline problems. Since Acorn Valley requires its students to wear uniforms, Bayview High School would do well to follow suit and require its students to wear uniforms as well.

范文： In this letter to the editor the author argues that Bayview High School should follow the example of Acorn Valley Academy and require its students to wear uniforms to school. In support of this recommendation the author points to Acorn’s low rate of absenteeism and tardiness as well as its lack of discipline problems and superior student performance. The author’s recommendation is questionable for a number of reasons.
To begin with, the author assumes that all of the stated benefits are a result of Acorn’s requirement that its students wear uniforms. On the face of it this appears to be simplistic assumption. It defies common sense to believe, as the author must, that the primary reason Acorn’s students receive higher grades on average and are more likely to go on to college is that they are required to wear uniforms to school. Similarly, the author’s belief that Acorn’s low rate of tardiness, absenteeism, and discipline problems can be attributed directly to its dress code is not in accord with common sense.
Next, the author assumes that the only relevant difference between Bayview and Acorn is the wearing of school uniforms. This assumption is not supported in the argument. Moreover, if it turns out that Acorn’s students are gifted and highly motivated to learn whereas Bayview’s are unexceptional and lack motivation to learn, common sense indicates that Acorn’s students would be more likely to perform better and cause fewer problems than Bayview’s.
Finally, it is unclear whether Bayview suffers from any of the problems the author wishes to correct by mandating its students to wear uniforms. For example, the author states that Acorn’s students earn higher grades on average and are more likely to go on to college, but it is unclear whether this is a comparison to Bayview’s students or to some other group. Lacking assurance that Bayview is deficient in the categories mentioned in the letter, it is difficult to accept the author’s recommendation.
In conclusion, the author has failed to provide compelling reasons for the recommendation that Bayview’s students be required to wear uniforms. To strengthen the argument the author would have to provide evidence for the assumption that Acorn’s requirement that students wear uniform is responsible for the various benefits mentioned. Additionally, it would have to be established that Bayview is similar in relevant respects to Acorn and suffers from the problems that the author’s remedy is intended to correct.