【简介】感谢网友“雕龙文库”参与投稿，这里小编给大家分享一些，方便大家学习。
73. The author of this editorial asserts that trespassing, vandalism, and theft
associated with stealing fruit from farms is a trivial problem and, as a result, enacting
laws to protect farm- and land-owners from these crimes is a waste of lawmakers time.
In support of this claim, the author points out only that the nations cities are plagued by
far more serious problems of violence and crime. To the extent that this author has
provided any argument at all, it is a poor one,
First of all, the author unfairly assumes that if lawmakers are taking rural crime
issues seriously, then they cannot be taking urban crime issues seriously. The author is
presenting a false dilemma by imposing an either-or choice between two courses of
action that need not be mutually exclusive. It is equally possible that legislators can
address both areas of concern concurrently.
Secondly, the argument relies on the assumption that the legislators in question
have the opportunity to address urban crime problems. However, we are not told
whether this legislatures jurisdiction encompasses both rural and urban areas. If it
encompasses only rural areas, then the authors implicit conclusion that the legislators in
this region should instead be addressing urban crime problems would be completely
undermined.
Finally, the author unfairly trivializes the severity of rural crime by simply
comparing it with urban crime. While trespassing, vandalism, and fruit-stealing may
seem minor peccadilloes, especially compared to violent urban crimes, these rural
crimes might nevertheless result in serious financial damage to farm owners, depending
on the frequency and extent of the violations. The author fails to provide evidence for
the claim that these rural crimes are trivial. Instead, the author attempts to call attention
to a more dramatic but potentially irrelevant problem.
In conclusion, the argument is weak. It potentially distorts the alternatives
available to legislators in the region, as well as deflecting attention from the problem at
hand. To better evaluate it, we would need more information about the geographical
scope of this legislatures jurisdiction and about the extent of the fruit-stealing problem
73. The author of this editorial asserts that trespassing, vandalism, and theft
associated with stealing fruit from farms is a trivial problem and, as a result, enacting
laws to protect farm- and land-owners from these crimes is a waste of lawmakers time.
In support of this claim, the author points out only that the nations cities are plagued by
far more serious problems of violence and crime. To the extent that this author has
provided any argument at all, it is a poor one,
First of all, the author unfairly assumes that if lawmakers are taking rural crime
issues seriously, then they cannot be taking urban crime issues seriously. The author is
presenting a false dilemma by imposing an either-or choice between two courses of
action that need not be mutually exclusive. It is equally possible that legislators can
address both areas of concern concurrently.
Secondly, the argument relies on the assumption that the legislators in question
have the opportunity to address urban crime problems. However, we are not told
whether this legislatures jurisdiction encompasses both rural and urban areas. If it
encompasses only rural areas, then the authors implicit conclusion that the legislators in
this region should instead be addressing urban crime problems would be completely
undermined.
Finally, the author unfairly trivializes the severity of rural crime by simply
comparing it with urban crime. While trespassing, vandalism, and fruit-stealing may
seem minor peccadilloes, especially compared to violent urban crimes, these rural
crimes might nevertheless result in serious financial damage to farm owners, depending
on the frequency and extent of the violations. The author fails to provide evidence for
the claim that these rural crimes are trivial. Instead, the author attempts to call attention
to a more dramatic but potentially irrelevant problem.
In conclusion, the argument is weak. It potentially distorts the alternatives
available to legislators in the region, as well as deflecting attention from the problem at
hand. To better evaluate it, we would need more information about the geographical
scope of this legislatures jurisdiction and about the extent of the fruit-stealing problem
