共0页 | 上一页 1 下一页
Argument 214
分享
In each city in the region of Treehaven, the majority of the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the value they place on public education. For example, Parson City typically budgets(1,2) twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents(3,4). It seems clear, therefore, that Parson City residents care(5) more about public school education than do Blue City residents.
In this argument, the arguer concludes that Parson City residents care more about public school education than Blue City residents do. In order to support this conclusion arguer cites that Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public schools. The argument has several logical flaws in some respects, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
In the first place, there is no evidence to support that two cities have the same conditions of education. Parson City may spend a lot of money on basic educational constructions, such as classrooms, blackboards and so on, which may have been built by Blue city government in the past. So they do not need to spend money on them now. That is one possibility can conduct Blue city spend less money on public education than Parson city.
In the second place, the arguer’s conclusion about Parson City residents care more about public school education than Blue City residents do depend on the assumption that two cities have the same number of students. Yet, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate this assumption, besides telling us that the two cities have the same number of residents, which have no correlation between the same numbers of students in the public school. Common sense tells me that average spending on a student is much more significant than the all budgets. The arguer must provide that the numbers of the two cities in public students. Otherwise, the arguer cannot confidently draw any general conclusions about caring about public education between two cities.
In the third place, there are many other ways to support public education besides adding budgets. Perhaps, the donation of Blue city is much more than Parson city. In addition, we also can not ignore another reason that some of the residents of Blue city teach in the public school as volunteers. They believe that their behaviors are only obligation as a resident in Blue city. This can make Blue city saving a lot of budgets on public education. The arguer ignores such aspects which may significantly contribute the result that Blue city spend less money on education than Parson.
Last but not the least, the conclusion is based on the assumption that the two cities have same amount of revenue, the fact perhaps that Blue city is much poorer than Parson city. This scenario is not ruled out by the arguer. Maybe Blue city spends more proportion on education than Parson city. Because Blue city is poor, the number of money is less than Parson city. If true, this fact would serve to refute the arguer’s conclusion that Parson city residents care more about public education than Blues city residents do.
All in all, the argument is unpersuasive to the conclusion that Parson city residents care more about public education than Blues city residents do. To strengthen it the arguer must provide clear evidence to get the conclusion. To better evaluate the conclusion we should know that the money of donation from the society, the number of students in Blue city and Parson city and the portion of the budgets in the two cities. So the argument is insufficient to support the conclusion that Parson city residents care more about public school education than Blue city residents do.
In this argument, the arguer concludes that Parson City residents care more about public school education than Blue City residents do. In order to support this conclusion arguer cites that Parson City typically budgets twice as much money per year as Blue City does for its public schools. The argument has several logical flaws in some respects, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
In the first place, there is no evidence to support that two cities have the same conditions of education. Parson City may spend a lot of money on basic educational constructions, such as classrooms, blackboards and so on, which may have been built by Blue city government in the past. So they do not need to spend money on them now. That is one possibility can conduct Blue city spend less money on public education than Parson city.
In the second place, the arguer’s conclusion about Parson City residents care more about public school education than Blue City residents do depend on the assumption that two cities have the same number of students. Yet, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate this assumption, besides telling us that the two cities have the same number of residents, which have no correlation between the same numbers of students in the public school. Common sense tells me that average spending on a student is much more significant than the all budgets. The arguer must provide that the numbers of the two cities in public students. Otherwise, the arguer cannot confidently draw any general conclusions about caring about public education between two cities.
In the third place, there are many other ways to support public education besides adding budgets. Perhaps, the donation of Blue city is much more than Parson city. In addition, we also can not ignore another reason that some of the residents of Blue city teach in the public school as volunteers. They believe that their behaviors are only obligation as a resident in Blue city. This can make Blue city saving a lot of budgets on public education. The arguer ignores such aspects which may significantly contribute the result that Blue city spend less money on education than Parson.
Last but not the least, the conclusion is based on the assumption that the two cities have same amount of revenue, the fact perhaps that Blue city is much poorer than Parson city. This scenario is not ruled out by the arguer. Maybe Blue city spends more proportion on education than Parson city. Because Blue city is poor, the number of money is less than Parson city. If true, this fact would serve to refute the arguer’s conclusion that Parson city residents care more about public education than Blues city residents do.
All in all, the argument is unpersuasive to the conclusion that Parson city residents care more about public education than Blues city residents do. To strengthen it the arguer must provide clear evidence to get the conclusion. To better evaluate the conclusion we should know that the money of donation from the society, the number of students in Blue city and Parson city and the portion of the budgets in the two cities. So the argument is insufficient to support the conclusion that Parson city residents care more about public school education than Blue city residents do.
崇拜楼主 | 
午餐牛肉共0页 | 上一页 1 下一页
