ARGUMENT

　　In this argument, the author concludes that To support his conclusion, the author points out that. In addition, the author reasons that Further more, he also assumes that . At first glance, the authors argument appears to be somehow appealing, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. We do not have to look very far to see the invalidity of this argument. This argument is problematic for the following reasons.

　　In the first place, this argument rests on a gratuitous assumption that . The author unfairly assumes that. However, the assumption is questionable because the author provides no evidence to support this argument. The arguer fails to take into account other facts that might contribute to the result that .. It is likely that , ..; it is also likely that Any of these scenarios, if true, would show that ..

Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

　　In the second place, the argument commits a logic fallacy of after this and therefore because of this. In no case can the mere fact that be cited as evidence to support the assumption that there is a causal-effect relationship between A and B. Moreover, that just because B can be statistically correlated with A does not necessarily mean that A is the cause of B. In fact, the author has obviously neglected the possibility of other alternative facts such as, or may contribute to a certain extent to B. It may be only a coincidence that . Unless the author can rule out other factors relevant to , this assumption in question can not be accepted.

　　In the third place, the evidence that the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. One example is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. Unless the arguer can show that A1 is representative of all A, the conclusion that B is completely unwarranted. In fact, in face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.

　　In the fourth place, the argument has also committed a false analogy fallacy. The argument rests on the assumption that A is analogous to B in all respects, and the author assumes without justification that all things are equal, and that the background conditions have remained the same at different times or at different locations. There is, however, no guarantee that this is the case. Nor does the author cite any evidence to support this assumption. Lacking this assumption, the conclusion that is entirely unfounded. In fact, it is highly doubtful that the facts drawn from B are applicable to A. Differences between A and B clearly out weight the similarities, thus making the analogy highly less than valid. For example, A..., however, B.... Thus, it is likely much more difficult for B to do....

　　In addition, the conclusion unjustifiably relies on the poll while the validity of the survey itself is doubtful. The poll cited by the author is too vague to be informative. The claim does not indicate who, when, how and by whom the survey is conducted, neither does it mention what is the sample size, or how the samples are selected. Until these questions are answered the results are worthless as evidence to support that.

　　Besides, the author assumes that A and B are mutually exclusive alternatives. However, the author has never offered any reasons or evidences for imposing an either/or choice. Common sense and observation tells us that adjoining both A and B might produce better results.

　　To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. To make the argument more convincing concerning. , the arguer would have to provide more information that. The arguer should also demonstrate that.to make this argument logically acceptable.

　　Since the author commits the above mentioned logical mistakes and fails to consider the whole situation comprehensively, his ideas should not be adopted. The conclusion would be strengthened if he.

　　In conclusion, the arguer fails to substantiate his claim that . Because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must convince us that. In addition, the arguer could have to provide more precise information to support his claim.

　　It is entirely possible that management has become lax regarding any number of factors that can affect the bottom line such as inferior products, careless product pricing, inefficient production, poor employee expense monitoring, ineffective advertising, sloppy buying policies and other wasteful spending.

　　內容僅供參考,建議：大家參考修改成自己的模板后再使用。

　　ARGUMENT

　　In this argument, the author concludes that To support his conclusion, the author points out that. In addition, the author reasons that Further more, he also assumes that . At first glance, the authors argument appears to be somehow appealing, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. We do not have to look very far to see the invalidity of this argument. This argument is problematic for the following reasons.

　　In the first place, this argument rests on a gratuitous assumption that . The author unfairly assumes that. However, the assumption is questionable because the author provides no evidence to support this argument. The arguer fails to take into account other facts that might contribute to the result that .. It is likely that , ..; it is also likely that Any of these scenarios, if true, would show that ..

Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

　　In the second place, the argument commits a logic fallacy of after this and therefore because of this. In no case can the mere fact that be cited as evidence to support the assumption that there is a causal-effect relationship between A and B. Moreover, that just because B can be statistically correlated with A does not necessarily mean that A is the cause of B. In fact, the author has obviously neglected the possibility of other alternative facts such as, or may contribute to a certain extent to B. It may be only a coincidence that . Unless the author can rule out other factors relevant to , this assumption in question can not be accepted.

　　In the third place, the evidence that the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. One example is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. Unless the arguer can show that A1 is representative of all A, the conclusion that B is completely unwarranted. In fact, in face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.

　　In the fourth place, the argument has also committed a false analogy fallacy. The argument rests on the assumption that A is analogous to B in all respects, and the author assumes without justification that all things are equal, and that the background conditions have remained the same at different times or at different locations. There is, however, no guarantee that this is the case. Nor does the author cite any evidence to support this assumption. Lacking this assumption, the conclusion that is entirely unfounded. In fact, it is highly doubtful that the facts drawn from B are applicable to A. Differences between A and B clearly out weight the similarities, thus making the analogy highly less than valid. For example, A..., however, B.... Thus, it is likely much more difficult for B to do....

　　In addition, the conclusion unjustifiably relies on the poll while the validity of the survey itself is doubtful. The poll cited by the author is too vague to be informative. The claim does not indicate who, when, how and by whom the survey is conducted, neither does it mention what is the sample size, or how the samples are selected. Until these questions are answered the results are worthless as evidence to support that.

　　Besides, the author assumes that A and B are mutually exclusive alternatives. However, the author has never offered any reasons or evidences for imposing an either/or choice. Common sense and observation tells us that adjoining both A and B might produce better results.

　　To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. To make the argument more convincing concerning. , the arguer would have to provide more information that. The arguer should also demonstrate that.to make this argument logically acceptable.

　　Since the author commits the above mentioned logical mistakes and fails to consider the whole situation comprehensively, his ideas should not be adopted. The conclusion would be strengthened if he.

　　In conclusion, the arguer fails to substantiate his claim that . Because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must convince us that. In addition, the arguer could have to provide more precise information to support his claim.

　　It is entirely possible that management has become lax regarding any number of factors that can affect the bottom line such as inferior products, careless product pricing, inefficient production, poor employee expense monitoring, ineffective advertising, sloppy buying policies and other wasteful spending.

　　內容僅供參考,建議：大家參考修改成自己的模板后再使用。