GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文四三

　　27. 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.