1、hisargumenttheauthorreaches Tosupport,the s t. An additional reason given in support of mendation t authorcites asanlehisargumenttheauthorreaches Tosupport,the s t. An additional reason given in support of mendation t authorcites asanleinsupportofglance, the authors argument appears to Further more,

2、 he also t . somewhatconvincing, whileacloseexaminationwillrevealhowgroundlessitis.Wedoto look very far to see the invalidity of this argument. This argument is problematic for the following reasons.Although the argument seems plausible glance, it is highly dubious because it hesecondhethird,thereas

3、oningdoesnotconstitutealogicalargumentinfavoroft.Tostrengthentheargument,theauthorwouldhavetoprovideevidencetoTobetterassesstheargument,weneedadditionaldetailedinformationIn addition, tmightunderminearebettertoberuledouttosubstantiate the argument. Only with more convincing evidence would this emore

4、thoroughandadequate,andwecanestablishSince the author commits the above mentioned logical mistakes and fails to consider the situation comprehensively, his ideas should not be adopted. strengthenedifwould HBS HBS The author commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification. The line of the reasoning tb

5、ecause Aoccurred beforeB,the former eventisresponsible for thelatter. (Theauthoruses itivecorrelationn A and B to establish causality. However, the t A with B does not sarily t AcausedB.)Butthisisfallacious reasoningunlesssiblecausalexplanationshavebeenconsideredandruledout.Forcauseoftheseeventsorpe

6、rhapsBisThe author commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification. The line of the reasoning tbecause Aoccurred beforeB,the former eventisresponsible for thelatter. (Theauthoruses itivecorrelationn A and B to establish causality. However, the t A with B does not sarily t AcausedB.)Butthisisfallaciou

7、s reasoningunlesssiblecausalexplanationshavebeenconsideredandruledout.ForcauseoftheseeventsorperhapsBiscausedbyle,perhapsCisThe evidence the author provides is insufficient to support drawn from it. istics from only a le is logically unsounded to establish a (The recentyearsarenotsarilyagoodindicato

8、roffuturetrends), unlessitcanbet is ive of all A. It t. In fact, in face of such limited evidence, t B isy第三宗罪: (basedonaogy橫向The argument rests onthe t A ogous to B in all respects. This mptionweak,sincealthoughtherearesofcomparisonnAandB,thereismuchaswell.Forle,A.,however,Thus,itislikelyoredifficu

9、ltforBtoallthingsareequal縱向Theauthorcommitsthefallacyof“allthingsareequal”.TheppenedtwoyearsagonotasoundevidencetodrawTheauthormeswithouttthebackgroundconditionshaveremainedthesameatdifferenttimesoratdifferentHowever, it is not his argument whether the current conditions at AA are the same theyusedt

10、obetwoyearsago.ThusitissibletoEither-OrTheauthortAAandBBaremutuallyexclusivealternativesandthereisnoroomformiddle ground. However, the author provides no reason for ing an either-or CommonlstadjustingAandBBmightproducebettersurveyisThe poll cited by the author is too vague to be informative. The cla

11、im does not indicate conducted the poll, who responded, or when, where and how the poll was conducted. (Lacking information about the number of people surveyed and the number of respondents, it sible to s the validity of the results. For le, if s were surveyed only 2 responded,t.wouldbe.Becausethear

12、gumentofferst would rule out this kind ions,) Until these questions are theresultsofthesurveyareworthlessasevidencefor.第gratuitousThe author falsely depends on gratuitous t.However, no evidence is ed theargumentto supportthis mption. Infact,thisisnot sarily thecase.For le,ismore八 One 某個決定有一個優點，就認為這是

13、最好的，由這個決定代替原來的t can without sacrificing the. The lineThe author s on the preasoningfailstoconsiderthebenefitsmightbringaswellastheharm.mightoccurInfact,(個決定的壞處) After assessing the situationismore八 One 某個決定有一個優點，就認為這是最好的，由這個決定代替原來的t can without sacrificing the. The lineThe author s on the preasoning

14、failstoconsiderthebenefitsmightbringaswellastheharm.mightoccurInfact,(個決定的壞處) After assessing the situation more comprehensively, it may turns t advantagesfar outweigh the disadvantages. Since the reasoning lacks a ysis of condition,theforecastofcannotbetaken九 Appeal to A A The author t all the peop

15、le unhappy with AA will complain about it/ did complain were satisfied with AA .Nonetheless, the evidence demonstrated is insufficient support . It is t. Without more concrete 十.theauthorunjustifiably s onthe t correlate and for he does not provide evidence to confirm the reliability of the studies.

16、 While the ggest” appear to lend credibility to these ement, this is vague enough to actually theclaimsheabsenceofanyinformationabout1、 A、respondents siblemethodologyheargumenttitisofbias.Thepollcitedthe author is too vague to be informative(The term “so many ”is too vague to be meaningful).Itistthe

17、workerswhowerehesurveymightlikely to respond to the questionnaire. he information about the number of surveyedandthenumberof respondents,it issibletoassessthevalidityofthesurvey.le, if 1000 workers were surveyed, but only 10 responded, the result should be . Because the author fails to account for i

18、ons , the survey would uselessin Whatsmore, the methodology of the survey is problematic for two reasons. For one thing, are not informed whether the survey only provided three alternatives. If it did , who might very well prefer choice not he survey, might be forced to give up . For another thing,

19、we are not informed whether the survey is anonymous . The respondents might supply responses favoured by their superiors who conductthesurvey.Botheventsmightleadare not informed whether the survey only provided three alternatives. If it did , who might very well prefer choice not he survey, might be

20、 forced to give up . For another thing, we are not informed whether the survey is anonymous . The respondents might supply responses favoured by their superiors who conductthesurvey.Botheventsmightleadrveyunreliable,letalonedrawThe memo provides no t the reports from the managers are reliable. manag

21、ers all have he vacation policies, and therefore ve the reports t the company would adopt policies they would prefer for themselves. memos author must considerthedepartmentsconvince t the reports are not biased. Then I could oEven if the survey y scertain es according to level ofemployeeconcern,high

22、est ing e in the survey might not be the e about which employees are concerned. Why? The improvements most needed from the of view of the might ve appeared as one of the on the survey. Since the list of presented onthesurvey wascreatedbymanagement n by the employees,the e greatest concern to the emp

23、loyees might not be included on the list. Lacking information how the survey was prepared , it is sible to assess the reliability. Consequently, basedonitishighlyquestionable. （質疑對選項的控制來控制結果樣 sThethresholdproblemttheauthorprovidesnoevidencetoteralgroupa whole is of the same characteristic. The le ci

24、ted , while suggestive of this trend, insufficient to t the le is ive of the whole group. For le, ttevidencewouldbeobviouslyive.Infact,inatofsuchlimitedevidenceitisfallaciousfortheauthortodrawt seriously weakens the logic of the argument t the survey cited based on too small a le to be Offered in su

25、pport of the argument, the evidence Unless it can be t the le is typical of all general the Last but not least, another t significantly undermines this argument t the neglects to indicate how recently the survey ually conducted. When used to claim a particular group, the le should be close enough to

26、 support eralization, order to prevent historical changes from invalidating generalization. All we know tLast but not least, another t significantly undermines this argument t the neglects to indicate how recently the survey ually conducted. When used to claim a particular group, the le should be cl

27、ose enough to support eralization, order to prevent historical changes from invalidating generalization. All we know t survey is recently published. The less recent the survey itself, the less reliable the results 結論無據gratuitousThe author falsely depends on gratuitous However, no argumentisedtosuppo

28、rtthisForle,itismore 掉2、 ly, the author is engaged in “after this, therefore , because of this”fallacy, t caused B. The line of reasoning t because A happened before B, the former caused latter. However , this reasoning is fallacious unless ossible causal factors have considered and ruled out. For l

29、e , perhaps C is the cause of A. Or perhapsYet sibility t. As a result, any aimed at addressing the problem of B must based on more thorough investigation to gather data in order to narrow down and locate actualcauseofSecondly,theauthors argumentrests onthetA is thecauseofB justA coincides with B. H

30、owever, aitionalcorrelationdoes not sarily prove a relationship. In addition, all rospective causes of B ,such as C and D, must be ruled WithoutysisofthecauseofB,itwouldbegroundlesstoattributeBtoCttheauthorhasconfusedcausewitheffectrespecting.(B的內容ast,itPerhaps A was simply a response to previous s

31、simply continued during the recent two years. Since the author fails to account for y sibility, the Thirdly,theauthorperceivedAastheonlytcausedB.Amoretother factors far outweigh the factor on which theauthor focuses. For le, andDaresibletobethecauseofB.Lackingamoreysisoftheitispresumptuousfortheauth

32、ortotAsolelyThirdly,theauthorperceivedAastheonlytcausedB.Amoretother factors far outweigh the factor on which theauthor focuses. For le, andDaresibletobethecauseofB.LackingamoreysisoftheitispresumptuousfortheauthortotAsolelydeterminedLast but not least, the author unfairly t A and B are mutually exc

33、lusive and there is no room for a middle ground. However, the author provides no evidence ing an either-or choice. Adjusting and B might produce better results. Moreover, t A and B are only causes for the problem, then the author is he most effective solution might include a combination of other suc

34、h as C and D. In event, the author provides no justification for the mutually exclusive choice ed on place, the author unfairly t B is determined solely by A. While A is seemingly important element in determining B, it is hardly the only or sarily element. This mption overlooks other l criteria in d

35、etermining B, such as C and Without accounting for these potential factors , the author concludes too bestwaytoachievethetis hesecondplace,theauthorssolutionrestsonthet Afficienttogivetothedesiredgoal.The authortAistheonly attributesarytodoB. Into A, C and D must be o consideration. However, if it t

36、urns t B is due to combinationctors, someofwhich will remain he future, such asE and F, AvenoimpactonTheargumentdependsonthet there are other such tAistheonlywaytodoB.Commonlshat C ,or D, to list just a few. The author must none of these options are available or why they would fail to stimulate B. O

37、therwise I would accept Aissary. Inaddition,theauthorfurther t Awould sufficeto bringthedesiredgoal.However,ifitturnstBisduetoacombination ctors,someofwillremainhefuture,suchasEandF,onlyAvenoimpacton3、 In addition, it is highly t strategies drawn from A are applicable to B. n these two clearly outwe

38、igh thewillremainhefuture,suchasEandF,onlyAvenoimpacton3、 In addition, it is highly t strategies drawn from A are applicable to B. n these two clearly outweigh the similarities, therefore making muchlessvalid.Forle,C andDallaffect A butarevirtuallyabsentinB.Accordinglywet A and B are so t B is unlik

39、ely to experience the same consequence if adoptsAsThe argument is based on the t students from Professor Taylors program learned n languages students at other universities. However, we are not given information about the study to be t this comparison is reliable. For le, the does l us whether the fo

40、reign language students at Jones were given the test; it t the tests in question were “given to students at25other colleges.” If Jones werenot tested,then no basisexists for comparingthemto students atthe other universities. addition,thearticledoesnotindicatewhetherstudentsatalltheuniversities,includingJones