The following appeared in a newspaper editorial.
As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote.
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
Based upon a correlation between increases in movie violence and crime rates in cities, the author argues that to combat crime in cities we must either censor movies that contain violence or prohibit people who are under 21 years of age from viewing them. The author further argues that because legislators failed to pass a bill calling for these alternatives, they are not concerned with the problem of crime in our cities. The authors reasoning is unconvincing, since it suffers from two critical problems.
To begin with, the authors solution to the problem rests on the claim that portrayals of violence in movies are the cause of crime in the cities. However, the evidence offered is insufficient to support this claim. A mere positive correlation between movie violence and city crime rates does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. In addition, all other prospective causes of city crime such as poverty or unemployment must be ruled out. As it stands, the authors solution to the problem is based upon an oversimplified analysis of the issue.
Another problem with the argument is that the authors solution assumes that only persons under 21 years of age are adversely affected by movie violence. Ultimately, this means that the author is committed to the view that, for the most part, the perpetrators of crime in cities are juveniles under 21. Lacking evidence to support this view, the authors solution cannot be taken seriously.
In conclusion, the best explanation of the failure of the bill calling for the actions proposed in this argument is that most legislators were capable of recognizing the simplistic analysis of the problem upon which these actions are based. Rather than providing a demonstration of a lack of concern about this issue, the legislators votes reveal an understanding of the complexities of this problem and an unwillingness to accept simple solutions.
Social media sadness 社交媒体引发的悲哀
Would you let your baby sleep in a box? 你愿意让自己的宝宝在盒子里睡觉吗?
“烧包”的各种说法
Can a lie-in make you healthier? 睡懒觉能让你更健康?
Topping the charts 高居榜首
Are you ready for your exam? 考试,你准备好了吗?
奥巴马总统在911事件十五周年纪念日活动上的演讲
Too much stuff 物质主义和简约主义
Closing the doors on paradise 为生态修复关闭旅游天堂岛屿
“舌尖上的中国2”美食英文说法抢鲜看之三(组图)
A matter of waste 废物回收一两事
Loss of biodiversity affects human society 生物多样性减少给人类社会带来影响
“舌尖上的中国2”美食英文说法抢鲜看之四(组图)[1]
Summer in Britain 英国夏季的节日和活动
“舌尖上的中国2”美食英文说法抢鲜看之二(组图)[1]
Like reality, only better? 喜欢现实, 只会更好?
A cashless society 无现金社会
“舌尖上的中国2”美食英文说法抢鲜看之六(组图)
Wardrobe dilemma 面对衣橱的困惑
How safe is your bed? 你的床安全吗?
Sweat it out – in a bath! 泡热水澡等于做运动
How to live longer 怎么才能长寿
Reunion? Count me out! 重聚? 别算上我!
Need glasses? Try kale instead. 视力不好吃羽衣甘蓝试试
设立“学术欺诈罪”
Why do we laugh? 为什么我们会笑?
How to become a billionaire 如何成为亿万富翁
Apple’s headphone headache? 令人头疼的新款苹果耳机
奥运赛事分类词汇-跳水[1]-跳水
The future of English 未来的英语语言变化
| 不限 |
| 英语教案 |
| 英语课件 |
| 英语试题 |
| 不限 |
| 不限 |
| 上册 |
| 下册 |
| 不限 |