继续写。2I+3A了。我觉得我现在写A第一段速度已经上来了。不过最后一段还是有点虎头蛇尾。
The following appeared in the opinion section of a national newsmagazine.
`To reverse the deterioration of the postal service, the government shouldraise the price of postage stamps. This solution will no doubt prove effective,since the price increase will generate larger revenues and will also reduce thevolume of mail, thereby eliminating the strain on the existing system andcontributing to improved morale.~
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion besure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument.For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underliethe thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weakenthe conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen orrefute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logicallysound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The editor of this argument posits the conclusion that the national stampfee should be raised in order to reduce the current financial stress on thepostal service and meanwhile enhance the morale. He reasons by assuming that anincrease in postage stamps will definitively increase the total revenue from postal service. Andhe also assumes that the total mail volume will go down together with theincrease of the stamp fee. His reasoning, though seems somewhat convincing atfirst glance, it could not undergo further scrutiny. In my part, the argumentsuffers the following logic flaws.
In the first place, the editor predicts that the volume will decline ifthe unit stamp fee goes higher. However, there is a possibility that all thepeople who send mails have no other choices, so that no many how expensive theunit stamp fee is, they could do nothing but to keep sending the same volume ofemails. The editor providesno evidence or reasoning to prove this situation will not occur, so that hisconclusion about the decrease in volume is really unwarranted.
In the second place, even if we accept the author's position that thevolume will go down, the argument is still not sound. Simply based on the factthat the stamp fee will go up and the volume will go down, the editor predictsthe total revenue will also go up. Admittedly, revenue is composed by two parts--price and quantity. As we know when the volume declines and price rises, onlyin the case that price increases so much that it offsets the effect caused bythe decline of volume can the total revenue still go up. Common sense tells usthat in a market where there are many substitutions so that customers are veryprice sensitive, every tiny increase in the price will cause a huge decline inthe customer demand and thus reduce the equilibrium quantity. As a result, inthis case the total revenue plummets, rather than goes up. The editor in thisarticle ruled out the situation discussed above without any explanation or evidence, making hisargument vulnerable to the critic that the customers may be too price sensitive in the currentworld in which EMS, electronic mails and telephones can all be proper substitutions of mails.
To sum up, the editor fail to substantiate his conclusion that the totalpostage revenue will increase and the mail volume will decrease in thisargument. And he would have to involve more explanation and evidence to make a soundconclusion. (425)
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
楼主
发表于 2010-8-28 00:47:11
