Argument 61 求拍。谢谢！！！

chris亚

Argument 61          ——question题
提纲：1.数据模糊，提升到200%，但是不知道原来的PC是多少，所以无法得出结论。所以需要回答原来的PC是多少。而且上座率也需要先回答以前的上座率是多少，不然无法的、给出定论。
2.作者说要提价，但是需要回答，现在的价格是多少，提高价格之后人们能不能接受，提高价格之后，是否同样有那么多人愿意买票去观看？
3.作者说的以上的情况是去年发生的。所以我们还要回答，去年的数据能用于今年么？
4，结论中说道，some citycommissioners.那么要问的就是：这些人到底有多少？他们能代表其他的commissioner吗？

Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence,thestatement draws the conclusion that the funding fromthe city of Grandview that for the Grandview Symphony should be eliminated.To substantiatethe recommendation,the arguer points evidence that last year,privatecontributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and the attendence atthe symphony’sconcerts-in-the-park series doubled. Furthermore, the author indicatesthat some city commissioners recommend that funding for the symphonyshould be eliminated from next year’s budget. Although this argument might seemlogical at first glance,I find the author suffers from cause and effect andvague investigation and analysis,and thus,it seems unconvincing in several respects.

For example,unless the surveyor answered several questions,likewhat specific number of private contributions to the symphony last year as wellas the attendance at the symphony’s concerts-in-the-park.The “percentage” istoo subjeuctive to insinuate the number of people.It is highly possible thatthey investigated only thousands of private contribution,while there spends aremore then that.What’s more,if the attendance at the symphony’s concerts-in-the-park only 50 last year while the park contain nearly500 seats.What’s more,it is not necessarily the case that through increasethe ticket prices for next year can this symphony still attract audiences as ithas earned during past one year.Without convincing answers to these questions,one is leftwith the impression that claim is more of a wishful thinking rather thansubstantive evidence.

Additionaly,another flaw that significantly undermines thisargument is that the author neglects to indicate arecently survey.       It is highlydoubtful that surveies drawn from last year are applicable to this year.Howeverdifferences between those two clearly outweigh the similarities,thereful makinganalogy much less valid.For example,the private contributions to the GYlast year does not mean the seem thing will happen in this year.Withoutexplicit answer about this question that if there are equal or more privatecontributions to the symphony,it would groundness to adopt the authorsrecommendation. This argument is unacceptable unless thereis compelling evidence to support the author’s assertion.

The last but not the least important,evenif the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumption,the arguer isbasedon the assumption that there is no other competitors except for thepresent ones.Perhaps other symphonies might adopt effectivemethod to affect the symphony’s attendents and profit.Moreover,the author failto tell us what the present ticket price for the symphony,and how much it willbe in the next year,it is hard to say whether it could make a further profit.Neitherany conclusive scientific evidence nor any anecdotal轶事 evidence is provided to affirm thisassumption.

To sum up,the author fails to substantiate hisrecommendation that the founding for the sympony can beeliminated from next year’s budget,because the arguer’s argument mentionedabove is not lend  strong support to whatthe author maintains.Although it is the case that the GS can be self-supporting,wewill still hastily匆忙的come to the conclusion the funding for the S can be eliminated from next year’sbudget.In order to draw a better conclusion,the arguer should reason more convincingly.Wht’smore a large quantity of questions are needed to answer,such as:how many citycommissioners provide this recommendation,what about others’ opinion?If there remainsany other expenditures the commissioners are never know? To cite some evidencesthat is more persuasive,and take every consideration into account,only thenwould it have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

竹林中人

1.题目最好附上
2.结尾太长，不好，结尾要短而有力。
3.有一点要注意的是，每一段中你不宜写进太多的信息，可以只针对一条质疑点论证说明。写多了显得不深入，而且杂乱

chris亚

好。谢谢！！！！