argument160 是否要用亮化工程来改善毁坏公物的情况

mikezidane

160) The following appeared in a recommendation from the President of the Amburg Chamber of Commerce.
Last October, the city of Belleville installed high-intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Amburg, on the other hand, recently instituted police patrols on bicycles in its business district. However, the rate of vandalism here remains constant. Since high-intensity lighting is clearly the most effective way to combat crime, we recommend using the money that is currently being spent on bicycle patrols to install such lighting throughout Amburg. If we install this high-intensity lighting, we will significantly reduce crime rates in Amburg.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
1统计时间短之前方法是否真的不管用
2别的城市的经验能否借鉴
3去年和今年是否一样

The argument is well presented yetfar-fetched. It lays a claim that the city of Ambury
should adopt the lighting policy. Theargument is in effect unreasonable due to several flaws such as the timedifferences, the differences of cities, and whether the policy is trulyuseless. These logical fallacies can be diagnosed after a close scrutiny,albeit they may appear plausible at a cursory glance.  
To begin with, a threshold problem in theargument that the author conclude the police patrols ineffective merely on thevandalism has not drop dramatically recently. Actually, carrying out a newpolicy always acquire the society to adapt it. After that the positiveinfluence of that policy can be observed apparently. The author naturallyshould be more patient to collect data for the real influence of police patrolpolicy. With out providing enough evidence, the author's statement is dubiousat best.

In spite of the unconvincing of policepatrol, the statement maintains ill-conceived. The author should answer thequestion of whether city of Amburg can borrowthe experience from the City of Beleville
.These two cities may be neighbors and in the same region of the country.However, the variation of these places especially economically can not be omitted.Perhaps the city of Belevillehas a smaller number of illiterate rate and people there are more civilized.Obviously the vandalism rate in that city can be relatively low even withoutthe lighting measure. But Amburg may not achieve after introduce the samepolicy because of the citizen’s poor ethnical standard. Failure of the authorto roll out other likely scenarios compromises the argument's credence.
Even assuming these two cities are some howsimilar in everything, a significant problem in the proposal that the experiencefrom Belleville
is dated last year. And this fact leads to a question that whether thesituation has already changes with the time. It is totally possible that inthis year the city of Amburg holds a large event, foot world cup for example,then the vandalism rate can imagined be higher due to the drunk foot ball fansare aggressive particularly after a lose of their team. Perhaps the lightingmeasure can be effective for the quite people rather the drunkard. So adoptingthe author's judgment will certainly undermine, rather than benefit, theconclusion.
In retrospect, itseems precipitous for the author to jump into the conclusion based on a seriesof problematic premises. To dismiss the specter of implausible in thestatement, the author ought to provide cogent evidence to answer the questionsthat whether these two cities are alike, dose the city this year has somedifference from the last year, and is the policy of police patrol reallyuseless. After all, feckless attempts with a fallible method can be nothing buta fool's errand. Thus only by grasping the gist of argument can the authordeduce a convincible conclusion.

普渡哥

Theargument is in effect unreasonable due to several flaws such as the timedifferences,。。。

in effect 应该是 in fact吧。。。这个错误。。。

普渡哥

我觉得作者的思路还是非常清楚的。

mikezidane

谢谢普渡哥指导！  in effect 也是有这个用法的  表示‘在实行中’的意思  这个是我自己攒的一个模板里的表述  因为打字速度不够快 所以每篇ARGU这些套话我都几乎一样 加起来总共有那么170字  普渡哥你觉得这些没有实际内容的表述占得比例会不会太多？  

竹林中人

关于这类建议或者政策型的类比类题目，思路比较明显的是：这个建议或者政策是不是真的有效？会不会是其他的原因带来的同样的效果。如果真的有效，在一个地方有效是不是一定在另一个地方有效，情况不一样或者时间不一样了，会有什么什么变化（关于什么情况不一样或者有什么变化，在文章最好能具体地写出来，而不是抽象地说不一样，这在OG中的范文中体现的比较明显），再次是即使上面的两点都是成立的，会不会带来负面的效果？或者会不会有更好更有效的方法？
另外，A中的那些结构上的一些套话，你最好能多积累些，以便灵活变换，尽量避免跟很多人类似

mikezidane

明白了  还是要养成这种思维模式  谢谢竹林哥建议！