Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

the argument relies on what might be a false analogy between in order for

serve as models that should emulate, one must assume that all relevant
circumstances involving the business are essentially the same. However, this
assumption is unwarranted. For example, the argument overlooks the possibility
that as for , perhaps as for ,perhaps

the argument concludes based on a known correlation between Yet the


correlation alone amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect
relationship. Perhaps moreover, the argument overlooks the fact that the
argument has not accounted for the possibility that if this is the case, then the
conclusion that would lack any merit whatever.

the argument assumes that reflects the general trend upon which that
argument relies. Yet the argument fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this
crucial assumption. Absent such evidence, it is just likely that perhaps

1. the recommendation depends on the assumption that no alternative means


of are available. Yet no evidence is offered to substantiate this assumption.
However, it is entirely possible that means other than this would also
achieve the desired result. Perhaps the desired improvement could be
achieved if or without considering the ruling out these and other
alternative means it cannot conclude that in order to achieve the goal.
2. The recommendation depends on the additional unsubstantiated
assumption that would to the desired extent. Absent evidence that this
is the case, it is equally that would not suffice by itself. , otherwise the
will not be effective. In short, unless the superintendent can show that be
effectively implemented and received, I cannot accept the recommendation.

the survey methodology might be problematic in two respects. First, we are not
informed whether the survey required that respondents choose between
alternatives. If it did, then the results might distort the preferences of the
respondents, who might very well prefer a choice not provided for in the survey.
Secondly, we are not informed whether survey responses were anonymous, or
even confidential. If they are not, then respondents might have provided
responses that they believes their superiors would approve of, regardless of
whether the responses were truthful. In either event, the survey results would be
unreliable for the purpose of drawing any conclusions about the preferences, let
alone about


The claim unfairly infers from record in the past that this year also be
comparatively : Absent evidence to support this inference, it is just as likely
that has improved recently. Or that has recently. For that matter, perhaps
the most recent few years in no better or perhaps even worse than those of its
competitors. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim
that
Structure;

1.

2.

3.

4.
5.
6.

1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

To support this recommendation the speaker cites the following facts


about Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of
them lend credible support to the recommendation.
First, do not necessarily indicate that perhaps, for that matter, in
short, without ruling out other possible reasons for , the speaker cannot
convince me on the basis that
Secondly, even if , the speaker assumes further that Yet the memo
contains no evidence to support this assumption. Lacking such evidence it is
equally possible that in fact, perhaps
Thirdly, . Is little indication that
Fourthly, accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the recommendation.
Besides,
In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that
render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation one
must provide clear evidence.
In this memo one points out that despite the fact that one also points
out that one reasons that on the basis of this line of reasoning one
concludes that this argument contains several logical flaws, which render
it unconvincing.
A threshold problem with the argument involves one provides no
evidence about Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that
The argument also assumes unfairly that rather than some other
phenomenon. One ignores a host of other possible explanations for
without ruling out all other possible explanations for , one cannot convince
me that
Even if ones claim that is unjustified. One overlooks a myriad of other
possible reasons for perhaps In short, without accounting for other
factors that might contribute to , one cannot justify the claim that
Finally, even if one can substantiate all of the foregoing assumptions, ones
assertion that is still unwarranted, in respects.

6.

In sum, ones argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strength it one must


provide better evidence that to better assess the argument I would need
to analyze I would also need to know

1.

One concludes that to justify this conclusion one cites that the manager
reason that must attribute to ones argument is flawed in several critical
respects.
To begin with, assuming that , one overlooks the possibility that
perhaps or either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the
managers claim that
One also overlooks the possibility that one or more factors other than
were instead responsible for for instance, perhaps if so, this fact would
seriously weaken ones claim that
Even assuming that either or , or both, were responsible for , ones
claim that might nevertheless be unwarranted. For instance,
Finally, in concluding that , one assumes that are both necessary and
sufficient for this propose. Yet one has not provided any evidence to
substantiate either assumption. Lacking such evidence, it is just likely that
even if , it is entirely possible that would not suffice to ensure due to
the sort of factors mentioned above that might have contributed to
In sum, one has not convinced me that to bolster the argument one must
rule out all other possible reasons for and must show that

2.

3.

4.
5.

6.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

In the argument, one cites a study correlating with the author also
cites the author concludes that the correlation observed in the study is a
function of the correlation between this argument suffers from a series of
poor assumption, which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.
To begin with, the author provides no evidence that the studys results are
statistically reliable. In order to establish a strong correlation the studys
sample must be sufficient in size and representative of the overall
population of lacking evidence of a sufficiently representative sample, the
author cannot justifiably rely on the study to draw any conclusion
whatsoever.
Even assuming that that study is statistically reliable, a direct correlation
between does not necessarily prove that the former causes the latter.
While a high correlation is strong evidence of a causal relationship, in itself
it is not sufficient. The author must also account for all other possible factors
leading to such as lacking evidence that the author cannot justifiably
conclude that
Similarly, a correlation between does not necessarily infer a causal
relationship. Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is possible that the
author must consider and eliminate this and other possible reasons why
otherwise, I cannot accept the authors implicit claim that
Even assumingly that the author cannot reasonably conclude that the

6.

1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

1.

2.
3.
4.
5.

1.

2.

author overlooks the possibility that without accounting for this


possibility the author cannot convincingly conclude from the study that
In conclusion, the argument unfairly assumes that correlation is tantamount
to causation. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide clear
evidence that the author should also provide clear evidence that to
better evaluate the reliability of the study upon which the authors
conclusion depends, I would need more information about the size and
makeup of the studys sample. I would also need to know
The author concludes that to support this conclusion the author cites
studies showing however, close scrutiny of this evidence and of the line of
reasoning reveals that they provide little credible support for the
conclusion.
To begin with, the argument claims that however, the author provides no
evidence to support this claim. It is just as possible that besides, this
argument assumes that experience informs us, however, that this is not
the case, especially for
The author goes on to cite studies that however, as it stands this evidence
is far too vague to support the authors conclusion common sense tells us
that
The author continues by claiming that this argument by analogy is wholly
unpersuasive. The latter , the former
In conclusion, the author is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the
argument, the author must provide more compelling evidence that in
order to better evaluate the argument, we would need more information
about whether the cited studies refer specifically to
This argument concludes that the argument points out that to support
its conclusion, the argument points out that I find the argument
unconvincing for three reasons.
First, the mere fact that is scant evidence of moreover, in my
observation thus it can be argued that
Secondly, the argument unfairly assumes that it is entirely possible that
for that matter, perhaps
A third problem with the argument involves admittedly, however,
Moreover, if
In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the
arguments proponent must provide clear evidence that to better assess
the argument, I would need better evidence
In this memo, the author claims that to support this conclusion the author
points out that on several grounds, this evidence lends little credible
support for the memos conclusion.
First of all, the fact that might be explained by variety of factors.

3.

4.

5.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.

1.

Perhaps if so, it might be a mistake to or perhaps in short, without


ruling out other possible explanations for the author cannot justifiably
conclude that
Secondly, the memo fails to indicate whether it is possible, for instance,
that if so, then the authors recommendation would make little sense. On
the other hand, if this fact would lend considerable support to the authors
conclusion that
Thirdly, the memo cites while this fact does lend support to the authors
suggestion, the author overlooks possibility that it would be hasty to
implement the authors suggestion without acknowledging and exploring
this possible scenario.
In conclusion, the memo is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the
argument, the author must show that to better assess the authors
recommendation that ... we would need to know we would also need more
information about that impact that
In this argument, one recommends that to support this recommendation,
one cites an survey showing that this argument is flawed in several critical
respects.
A threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of
the survey. One provides no evidence that number of respondents is
statistically significant of that the respondents were representative of in
general. Lacking information about the randomness and size of the surveys
sample, one cannot make a convincing argument based on that survey.
Even if the surveys respondents are representative of the entire population
of , the argument relies on the assumption that Yet one ignores the
possibility that for that matter, lacking evidence that the respondents
reports were both truthful and meaningful, one cannot confidently draw any
conclusions about
Even assuming that the survey data accurately reflect the truth, the
argument unfairly assumes that analogy is effective between perhaps
for that matter, perhaps in short without accounting for possible
differences between one cannot convince me that the recommendation is
sound.
The argument also assumes that although this assumption might
generally be sound, it nevertheless might not hold true for in other words,
despite might and therefore
Finally, even if the author concludes too hastily that it is possible that
if so
In sum, the surveys statistical reliability and its relevance is questionable.
To strengthen the recommendation one must provide clear evidence that
to better assess the argument, I would need a detailed analysis that
In this argument the speaker concludes that to justify this conclusion, the

2.

3.

4.

5.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

speaker points out that the speaker also points out that however, for
three reasons this evidence above lends little credibility to the speakers
argument.
First, the argument concludes too hastily that in relying on the
observation that the speaker overlooks the possibility that without
ruling out this alternative explanation for the speaker cannot justify the
conclusion that
Secondly, the argument relies on the assumption that but the speaker
provides no evidence that this is the case. Moreover, perhaps or
perhaps either scenario would explain
Thirdly, the speaker assumes that however the speaker provides no
evidence to substantiate this assumption. Given other possible explanations
for , this evidence in itself lends little credible support to the speakers
theory about
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it,
the speaker must rule out the possibility that to better evaluate the
argument, we need more information about particularly, we would need
to know
One claims that to support this claim one cites a variety of statistics
about however, careful scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends no
credible support to the claim.
One problem with the claim involves its reliance on the fact that the
statistics in itself proves nothing because it is possible that besides, it is
entirely possible that either scenario, if tends to be true, would serve to
weaken the claim rather than support it.
Another problem with claim involves the fact that it is entirely possible
that without ruling out this possibility, the claim cannot convince me
that
A third problem with the claim involves its reliance on the fact that it is
entirely possible that and that moreover, it is possible that without
addressing this issue, the claim cannot justify its conclusion that
In conclusion, the claim is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen its claim
that the claim should provide stronger evidence that the claim should
also provide evidence that finally to better evaluate the argument we
would need more information about

According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its
corporate tax rate by 15 percent. At the same time, it began offering relocation
grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would locate to
Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton,
where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville
to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to
provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private
companies to relocate there.
The article claims that Beauville will stimulate its economic development and
hence reduce unemployment by providing tax incentives and other financial
inducements as the city of Dillton do. To substantiate the claim, speaker cites that
with the tax incentive, the city of Dillton attracts two manufacturing companies
to locate and offer an employment of 300 people. However, in my point of view,
theres some flaw in the argument so it is not logically convincing in several
respects.
First of all, the speaker assumes that two manufacturing companies
relocating in the city of Dillton due to its tax incentive and other financial
inducements. However, I cannot see any evidence provided to substantiate it. For
instance, perhaps these two companies relocate in the city of Dillton because of
other factors like the convenience to sell its product or employ practical
employees. If so, the assumption is incredible so that the means of offering tax
incentives cannot work both in the city of Dillton or Beauville.
Secondly, even if the assumption that these two companies relocating is due
to the tax incentive, we cannot easily think that the means can also work in
Beauville. The speaker provides no evidence to substantiate the analogy between
Dillton and Beauville. Because the differences between two cities are not cited in
the argument, we cannot conclude whether the tax incentives and financial
incentives can also work in Beauville.
Thirdly, even if we assume the means of providing tax incentives can attract
companies to relocate in Beauville. But we have to account that the reducing of
tax means the income of government also reduces, so we cannot foresee the
economic development in Beauville due to the unknown of the companys merit.
Furthermore, the claim relies its argument in the fact happening in the past.
With time going, it provides no evidence that the means can also work nowadays.
For example, before the financial crisis, the company may be willful to relocate in
another city, while, after the financial crisis, the relocation may be unable for
many companies because of the huge cost.
To sum up, the article has not convinced me that the proposed incentives

would be the best way for Beauville to achieve its desired economic goals. To
bolster the argument the author must provide clear evidence that Dilltons tax
incentives are responsible for the relocation. I would also need to compare
whether during different period the incentives may have the same effects.
Giving structure
This article argues that the article points out that the argument is logically
unconvincing in several respects.
To begin with, the argument depends on the assumption that rather than for
other reason. Yet lacking evidence to the contrary it is entirely possible that
without ruling out all other reasons why the argument that is dubious at
best.
Even if , the argument relies on the further assumption that yet the only
evidence the article offers to substantiate this assumption is that perhaps if
so, or perhaps, for that matter, perhaps in short without more information
about it is impossible to assess whether
Even if the article unfairly assumes that it is entirely possible that for
instance, perhaps or perhaps without accounting for such differences any
analogy between the two is premature, and any conclusion based on that analogy
is unjustified.
Furthermore, the authors inference that rests on the poor assumption that
perhaps or perhaps indeed the fact that
Finally the article fails to consider any other course of action that might in
short without weighing the proposal against alternatives, the articles claim
that are the best means of achieving desired goals is wholly unconvincing.
To sum up, the article has not convinced me that to bolster the argument the
articles author must provide clear evidence that to better assess the argument
I would need to know I would also need to know

The article claims that Beauville will stimulate its economic development and hence
reduce unemployment by providing tax incentives and other financial inducements as
the city of Dillton do. To substantiate the claim, speaker cites that with the tax incentive,
the city of Dillton attracts two manufacturing companies to locate and offer an
employment of 300 people. However, in my point of view, theres some flaw in the
argument so it is not logically convincing in several respects.
First and foremost, the speaker assumes that two manufacturing companies
relocating in the city of Dillton due to its tax incentive and other financial inducements.
However, as for as I am concerned, there is little evidence provided to verify it. For
instance, perhaps these two companies relocate in the city of Dillton because of other
factors like the convenience to sell its product or employ practical employees. If so, the
assumption is incredible so that the means of offering tax incentives cannot work both
in the city of Dillton or Beauville.
Secondly, even if the assumption that these two companies relocating results from
the tax incentive, we cannot easily conclude that the means can also work in Beauville.
The speaker provides no evidence to substantiate the analogy between Dillton and
Beauville. Because the differences between two cities are not cited in the argument, we
cannot conclude whether the tax incentives and financial incentives can also work in
Beauville.
Furthermore, even if we assume the means of providing tax incentives can attract
companies to relocate in Beauville. But we have to account that the reducing of tax
means the income of government also reduces, so we cannot foresee the economic
development in Beauville due to the unknown of the companys merit.
Last but not the least, the claim relies its argument in the fact happening in the past.
With time going, it provides no evidence that the methods can also work nowadays. For
example, before the financial crisis, the company may be willful to relocate in another
city, while, after the financial crisis, the relocation may be unable for many companies
because of the huge cost.
To sum up, the article has not convinced me that the proposed incentives
would be the best way for Beauville to achieve its desired economic goals. To
bolster the argument the author must provide clear evidence that Dilltons tax
incentives are responsible for the relocation. I would also need to compare
whether during different period the incentives may have the same effects.