The following editorial appeared in the South Fork Gazette.
“Last year, the city contracted with Flower Power to plant a variety of flowers in big decorative pots on Main Street and to water them each week. By midsummer many of the plants were wilted. This year the city should either contract for two waterings a week or save money by planting artificial flowers in the pots. According to Flower Power, the initial cost for artificial flowers would be twice as much as for real plants, but after two years, we would save money. Public reaction certainly supports this position: in a recent survey, over 1,200 Gazette readers said that the city wastes money and should find ways to reduce spending.”
1， 花枯萎了不只和浇水次数有关
2， 不能只从成本考虑要用假花还是真花还要从收益角度
3， 最后的那个调查不可靠
4， 那个公司提供的成本数据是否可靠
sample1
In this argument, the author indicates that it is cost-effective to replace real flowers by artificial flowers. To support his conclusion, the author points out that those real flowers need more water to survive in mid-summer. In addition, he reasons that even though the use of artificial flowers spends twice the amount of money of the maintenance of real flowers initially, people will be beneficial to this alternative in a long run. Moreover, a recent survey quoted is cited citizens’ dissatisfaction with the fiscal performance and their hope of reduction of public spending. As I analyze this argument in close concert, the author’s view is not very convincing for three major reasons.
In the first place, the evidence the author provides is insufficient to support that the use of artificial flowers can reduce public spending, even in a long run. The author may emphasize the merit of artificial flowers that they never need water to survive or grow. But he fails to notice that over time, the outside artificial flowers inevitably become messy and dirty, weakening their decorative function. Then people also have to wash them with considerable amount of water. Furthermore, the sun fades the color of artificial flowers. Hence, the city need spend a supplementary cost to replace old ones.
In the second place, the author distorts the readers’ ideas about ways to reduce public spending. Readers never specify that an end to the use of real flowers should be one way to reduce public expense. Readers may call for changes in other public work and services other than the replacement of real flowers. As far as I know, lots of people have inherent preferences for real flowers, due to their peculiar features. When real flowers are blossoming, fragrant smell spreads over a large area. Compared with artificial flowers, real flowers can change their appearance at all seasons.
In the third place, the survey quoted by the author is worthless because some of its details have not been provided. Without additional information, such as the total number of people in the city or the framework of who were conducted, the result of the survey may lack representative. We can picture that the city has a population of more than 5 million, but this survey conducted only 1200 people, especially readers who are easily affected by the gazette's editorial.
Since the author commits logical mistakes mentioned above and fails to consider the whole situation comprehensively, his ideas should not be adopted. The conclusion would be strengthened if he can obviate these three major logical msitakes.
Sample2
In this argument, the author makes a conclusion that the city should plant artificial flowers instead of real flowers in big decorative pot on Main Street. The author's line of reasoning is established on his assumption that by planting plastic flowers, the city can save money. To support such an assumption, the author cites three supportive examples: last year, the city contracted with Flower Power to plant a variety of flowers and to water them each, yet by midsummer many of the plants were wilted; although the initial cost for plastic flowers is twice as much as real plants, the city can save money after two years; finally, public reaction will definitely support the proposal. At the first glance, the argument seems to be somewhat convincing. However, a close and deep reflection reveals how groundless and problematic it is. In the following paragraphs, I should elaborate the main flaws in the argument.
In the first place, the author fails to explore the real underlying reasons for the death of the plants and flowers. Instead, he makes a gratuitous assumption that more frequent watering is needed. However, the author fails to substantiate his point. In no case can the mere fact that the flowers are wilted help to build up such an assumption flawlessly. It is possible that many of the plants were wilted because they required drier soils for survival and thriving. Unless the author can build up a causal correlation between the survival of the plants and more needed watering, the assumption remains questionable and open to discussion.
In the second place, the author mentions that planting plastic flowers means the saving of money in the long run. However, the credibility of such an assertion has yet to be established, especially since the author ignores to point out that most of the plastic plants will last for more than two years. One obvious rebuttal to the author's reasoning is that investigations show that a majority of plastic plants, if planted on the Main Street, can only last for at most two years without the protection from direct sunshine. In such a case, the author's assertion that planting plastic plants will save money is of dubious validity.
In the third place, the author believes that the public will certainly support his position, as over 1200 Gazette readers said that the city wastes money and should find ways to reduce spending. Yet, such a survey result is neither representative nor reliable. Actually, it is rather misleading, since the author lacks direct evidence to buoy his assumption that the viewpoint of the 1200 Gazette can largely reflects the opinion of the majority of the residents. Besides, even if most of the residents do favor for a reduced spending, they may not necessarily consider the author's suggestion a proper way of reduction in expenditure. Therefore, the author makes a hasty conclusion that the public will support his position for sure.
To sum up, because it is plagued with the above-stated fallacies, the argument is flawed. To buttress his argument, the author should provide more direct evidence indicating that planting plastic plants will be more money-saving than planting real flowers. Moreover, the feasibility of planting and maintaining the plastic plants should also be taken into consideration. Additionally, a more related and reliable survey showing the real support for the author's recommendation will also cement the author's position.
