|
关于那些有说服力,什么说明,证明,证据啊什么的专业术语实在觉得匮乏啊,哪位高人可以再给一些词汇与我啊?不甚感激啊,先谢过了
AA027 The following appeared in a newspaper editorial.
“As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain
movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a
bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The author suggests that a board must be established to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age for certain movies, based on that as violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. Furthermore, the author blames that the legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such action didn't pass the vote. However, there are some flaws making the argument unconvincing.
To begin with, the author assumes that the increase in violence in movies is the cause of the increase in crime rates in our cities. But the author does not supply any evidence to demonstrate this assumption. Maybe the increasing crimes in our cities caused the increase in movies, since most movies' contexts are the reflection of society. Without persuasive evidence, we cannot attribute the increasing crime rate to the increase in violence in movies.
What's more, the author suggests that the admission should be limited to persons over 21. The author simply suggests such limitation, but hasn't given out any reason. Is it the case that person over 21 years old is mature in psychology and won't be influenced by the movies? There is no research supporting it. Perhaps people beyond 18 is mature and self -controlling enough to expose to violence movies, and maybe even people above 21 is liable to imitate the violence in the movie. So it lacks supports for the 21 years old criterion for violence exposure.
finally, the author thinks the failure of the bill calling for the action is out of the indifference of the legislators. However, maybe the legislators have a much better plan to decrease the crime rates rather than the ones recommended by the author, and that's why the bill didn't be passed. The evidence cited by the author is not sound enough to reach the conclusion that the legislators are not concerned about the issue.
To sum up, the author's recommendation is not logically solid for several aspects. To make it more sound, the author should demonstrate the increase in the crime rates is caused by the increase in violence in movies, and give out the reason why limit admission only to people above 21 years old. To better assess the argument, we should know whether the legislators simply decline the bill and have no other actions to take to deal with such issue?
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-9-30 7:54:07编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2005-9-27 09:07:00
楼主
