终于能按时写完文章了！AAA002，多谢大家帮忙

天之角

A planning consultant to the Banbridge Riverfront Festival Committee made the following recommendation to the committee.

“The Riverfront Festival drew 10,000 visitors — not bad for your first year. You should double that number, however, by bringing in the Jolly Pirate Ship. In St. Clyde, the Harbor Week Festival averaged 30,000 visitors per year over the last decade, but the attendance reached a high point of 45,000 a couple of years ago, when the Jolly Pirate was at the Harbor Week Festival. One of the organizers reported that the ship was especially popular with school groups. Have the Jolly Pirate Ship sail into the Riverfront Festival next summer, and your festival will be much more successful.

*************************************************

In this argument, the author claims that the Riverfront Festival should double the number of ten thousand visitors by bringing in the Jolly Pirate Ship. In order to buttress the conclusion, the author cites the evidence that the Harbor Week Festival experienced a increase after bringing in the Jolly Pirate Ship in the past. At first glance, the conclusion seems to be convincing, but a careful examination can reveal several flaws as following.

In the first place, the author commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification. The author assumes that the increase in the number of visitors to Harbor Week Festival was caused only by the Jolly Pirate Ship. But no evidence was shown to support the assumption; mere the coincidence of the two events cannot mean a causal relationship of them. There are still other important factors, such as improvement in management and more friendly staff, have great impact on the increase in the number of tourists. Therefore, the assumption cannot be used as a source of conclusion unless other crucial factors are considered and ruled out.

In the second place, the author reaches the conclusion based on the assumption that the Riverfront Festival and the Harbor Week Festival are analogous in all aspects. But the author demonstrates no empirical evidence to valid the assumption. Common sense tells us that it is impossible that two companies are the same in all aspects. Consequently, the author cannot base the conclusion on the false analogy unless he or she can show the fact that the two companies are exactly the same.

Finally, the author commits a fallacy of “all things are equal”. The author supposes that the situation is the same as it was in the past. Even though the Harbor Week Festival achieved the success by bringing in the Jolly Pirate Ship, it is not certain that the Riverfront Festival can also succeed in increasing the number of visitors by doing so. Thus, the author should consider some changes as time goes by.

In conclusion, the author fails to reach the conclusion because he bases it on the causal oversimplification and false analogy. To make the conclusion more plausible, the author should consider comprehensively and rule out all other possibilities that can invalid the evidence shown, and demonstrates that the two companies are exactly the same.

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-9-17 20:42:04编辑过]

happyfish0517

天GG~AAA002...我要晕倒了！！！

天之角

我扶你，别晕，我知错就改还不行。

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-9-17 20:42:29编辑过]

happyfish0517

以下是引用天之角在2005-9-17 19:53:00的发言：

A planning consultant to the Banbridge Riverfront Festival Committee made the following recommendation to the committee.

“The Riverfront Festival drew 10,000 visitors — not bad for your first year. You should double that number, however, by bringing in the Jolly Pirate Ship. In St. Clyde, the Harbor Week Festival averaged 30,000 visitors per year over the last decade, but the attendance reached a high point of 45,000 a couple of years ago, when the Jolly Pirate was at the Harbor Week Festival. One of the organizers reported that the ship was especially popular with school groups. Have the Jolly Pirate Ship sail into the Riverfront Festival next summer, and your festival will be much more successful.

*************************************************

In this argument, the author claims that the Riverfront Festival should double the number of ten thousand visitors by bringing in the Jolly Pirate Ship. In order to buttress the conclusion, the author cites the evidence that the Harbor Week Festival experienced an increase after bringing in the Jolly Pirate Ship in the past. At first glance, the conclusion seems to be convincing, but a careful examination can reveal several flaws as following.

第一段赞了~除了一个语法错误an increase应该是~~嘻嘻~模版不错~

In the first place, the author commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification. The author assumes that the increase in the number of visitors to Harbor Week Festival was caused only by the Jolly Pirate Ship. But no evidence was shown to support the assumption; mere the coincidence of the two events cannot mean a causal relationship of them. There are still other important factors, such as improvement in management and more friendly staff, have great impact on the increase in the number of tourists. Therefore, the assumption cannot be used as a source of conclusion unless other crucial factors are considered and ruled out.

In the second place, the author reaches the conclusion based on the assumption that the Riverfront Festival and the Harbor Week Festival are analogous in all aspects. But the author demonstrates no empirical evidence to valid the assumption. Common sense tells us that it is impossible that two companies are the same in all aspects. Consequently, the author cannot base the conclusion on the false analogy unless he or she can show the fact that the two companies are exactly the same.

company好像不大合适~two activities或者festivals会恰当一些~

Finally, the author commits a fallacy of “all things are equal”. The author supposes that the situation is the same as it was in the past. Even though the Harbor Week Festival achieved the success by bringing in the Jolly Pirate Ship, it is not certain that the Riverfront Festival can also succeed in increasing the number of visitors by doing so. Thus, the author should consider some changes as time goes by.

In conclusion, the author fails to reach the conclusion because he bases it on the causal oversimplification and false analogy. To make the conclusion more plausible, the author should consider comprehensively and rule out all other possibilities that can invalid the evidence shown, and demonstrates that the two companies are exactly the same.

前面注意了he or she这里又忘了~^_^

最后差一句总结陈词：Otherwise, we can safely show an opposition to the author's statement. 类似的话。

总的来说，这篇文章很厉害了~基本没有语法错误~句型句法也很严谨~看得出来模版有个大概了~

字数稍稍少了一些380字左右~可以再加一段让步之类的。

题目中的黄色highlight处是我看到题目能想到的攻击点，除了时间一致性，活动一致性，和他因，这三个天之角已经写了。还有几个可以参考的：

1、In St. Clyde, 在SC这个地方，HWF可以增长，但在Banbridge Riverfront这个地方，RF不一定能增长。school groups 也许前者的消费群中学生占大多数，而后者不靠近校园，对于学生来说过于遥远，没有吸引力。

2、One of the organizers 并不能说明实际情况，单一一个人的意见，可能存在主观片面的情况。

3、more successful. 什么代表更加成功？收入的增长也许并不是成功的保证。对社会的影响，环境的保护也许更加能够代表成功（如果由于引进海盗船而破坏环境遭政府罚款，不注意安全措施的跟上而破坏此嘉年华在公众间的口碑...ETC.是得不偿失的。）

还有一些琐碎的攻击点，如两个嘉年华的目的和目标消费群的不同啊...所在地自然条件的限制不同啊等等，都可以放在all things are equal中作为举例。毕竟单纯说理的论证是过于单薄的。

总的来说，再增加些字数~~这篇已经能够做为高分作文出现了~A ZA!!

等你好消息~

happyfish0517

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=26&ID=111166&replyID=&skin=0

P.S. 知错能改就好~上面这个是以前的讨论链接~~可以用作参考！！

天之角

多谢fish mm不辞辛劳地工作，赞一个！