[求助]斑竹帮忙修改一下我的作文吧!

williamjia

第一次写还超时6分钟,写了360字还不到,之前是想好论据的,哎,斑竹给点意见,修改一下,好吗?

29号就要考了,这样的状态让我提心吊胆啊,打字速度超慢啊! 斑竹的大作我都看过,最后时刻复习作文和语文,数学JJ,模考的时间真的很难分配啊.

敬请挨砖!

rio

你的文章呢?

williamjia

不好意思 现在贴上

AA38. The following appeared in the editorial section of a campus newspaper.

“Because occupancy rates for campus housing fell during the last academic year, so did housing revenues. To solve the problem, campus housing officials should reduce the number of available housing units, thereby increasing the occupancy rates. Also, to keep students from choosing to live off-campus, housing officials should lower the rents, thereby increasing demand.”

In the argument, the author claims that campus housing officials should reduce the number of available housing units and lower the rents to increase housing revenues. To substantiate his conclusion, the author provides the evidence that reducing the number of available housing units will increase the occupancy rates and lowering the rents will increase demand. While the author's argument is somewhat convincing, a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. The argument is problematic for the following reasons.

 

In the first place, the author reached the hasty generalization that reducing the number of available housing units will increase the occupancy rates. In fact, this is not the case. Nor does the author provide enough evidences to support this opinion. It is possible that much less occupancy rates will be caused by the reduction of the number of available housing units. However, reducing the number of available housing units does not ensure the increase in the occupancy rates. Therefore, the author's cited reasons are completely groundless.

 

In the second place, the argument commits the fallacy of "insufficient evidences". The author holds that lowering the rents will increase demand for housing. This alone does not cause the increase in demand for housing. The author obviously ignores many important factors. We may believe that better facilities and environment outside the school than that in the school will attract more students to rent the houses, although the rent of houses outside the school is higher than that of the school. Therefore, insufficient evidences will lead to false argument.  

 

Last but not the least, reducing the number of available housing units does not necessarily increase the housing revenues. Student will have fewer housing units to choose in the house as a result of reducing the number of available housing units, thus leading to fewer housing revenues.

 

In conclusion, such logic flaws as insufficient samples and hasty generalization make the argument invalid and unpersuasive. To solidify the argument, the author would have to provide much more evidences to support his argument as well as rule out other alternative situations. Only with more convincing evidences could the argument become more than just an emotional appeal.

williamjia

斑竹进来批批吧

williamjia

斑竹！