|
二、逻辑问题分析论证句式
1. The mere fact that ticket sales in recent years for screenplay-based movies have exceeded those for book-based movies is insufficient evidence to conclude that writing screenplays now provides greater financial opportunity for writers.
2. It is possible that fees paid by movie studios for screenplays will decrease in the future relative to those for book rights.
3. The argument fails to rule out the possibility that a writer engage in both types of writing as well as other types.
4. In any event, the advertisement provides no justification for the mutually exclusive choice that it imposes on the writer.
5. The argument simply equates success with movie ticket sales, which is unwarranted.
6. The author assumes that physical capabilities are the only attributes necessary to operate a motor vehicle.
7. Moreover, the author provides no evidence that the realism of color photography is the reason for its predominance.
8. This assumption presents a false dilemma, since the two media are not necessarily mutually exclusive alternatives.
9. Common sense tells us that a photographer can succeed by working in both media. 11. The major problem with the argument is that the stated similarities between Company A and B are insufficient to support the conclusion that Company A will suffer a fate similar to Company B’s.
12. Consequently, the mere fact that Company A holds a large share of the video – game hardware and software market does not support the claim that Company A will also fail.
13. Thus, the author unfairly assumes that highly – rated public television programs are necessarily widely viewed, or popular.
14. While this may be true in some cases, it is equally possible that only companies with products that are already best – sellers can afford the higher ad rates that popular shows demand.
15. Admittedly, the vice president’s reasoning linking employee benefits with company profits seems reasonable on the surface.
16. One can infer from the survey’s results that a full one – third of the respondents may have viewed the current benefits package unfavorably.
17. Lacking more specific information about how these other employees responded, it is impossible to assess the reliability of the survey’s results or to make an informed recommendation.
18. It is unlikely that the brief one – week periods under comparison are representative of longer time periods.
19. If so, even though 3 percent more accidents occurred after the change, the author’s argument that changing the speed limit increases danger for drivers would be seriously weakened. 21. In addition, while it is true that many voters change their minds several times before voting, and that some remain undecided until entering the voting booth, this is not true of everyone.
22. Without knowing the extent and nature of the damage resulting from the bad publicity or the reason for the violation, we cannot accept the author’s conclusion.
23. The author’s proposal is inconsistent with the author’s conclusion about the consequences of adopting an ethics code.
24. To begin with, the author fails to consider health threats posed by incinerating trash.
25. The author’s conclusion that switching to incineration would be more salutary for public health would be seriously undermined.
26. However, this is not necessarily the case.
27. The author’s implicit claim that incinerators are economically advantageous to landfills is poorly supported.
28. Consequently, unless the author can demonstrate that the city will incur expenses that are not covered by the increased revenues from these projects, the author’s concern about these issues is unfounded.
29. First of all, while asserting that real incomes are rising, the author provides no evidence to support this assertion. 31. Moreover, the author fails to consider and rule out other factors that might account for proportional decreases in spending on food. | 
