Sample2
In this argument, the author makes a conclusion that the city should plant artificial flowers instead of real flowers in big decorative1 pot on Main Street. The authors 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 wilted2; although the initial cosplayt 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 underlying3 reasons for the death of the plants and flowers. Instead, he makes a gratuitous4 assumption that more frequent watering is needed. However, the author fails to substantiate5 his point. In no case can the mere6 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 correlation7 between the survival of the plants and more needed watering, the assumption remains8 questionable9 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 authors reasoning is that investigations10 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 authors assertion that planting plastic plants will save money is of dubious11 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 buoy12 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 authors suggestion a proper way of reduction in expenditure13. 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 buttress14 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 authors recommendation will also cement the authors position.
相关文章推荐
