27.     
　　Based upon a correlation¹ between increases in movie violence and crime rates in cities, the author argues that to combat crime in cities we must either censor² movies that contain violence or prohibit people who are under 21 years of age from viewing them. The author further argues that because legislators failed to pass a bill calling for these alternatives, they are not concerned with the problem of crime in our cities. The author's reasoning is unconvincing, since it suffers from two critical problems.

      To begin with, the author's solution to the problem rests on the claim that portrayals³ of violence in movies are the cause of crime in the cities. However, the evidence offered is insufficient⁴ to support this claim. A mere⁵ positive correlation between movie violence and city crime rates does not necessarily prove a causal relationship, in addition, all other prospective⁶ causes of city crime such as poverty or unemployment must be ruled out. As it stands, the author's solution to the problem is based upon an oversimplified analysis of the issue.

      Another problem with the argument is that the author's solution assumes that only persons under 21 years of age are adversely⁷ affected⁸ by movie violence. Ultimately, this means that the author is committed to the view that, for the most part, the perpetrators of crime in cities are juveniles⁹ under 21. Lacking evidence to support this view, the author's solution cannot be taken seriously.

      In conclusion, the best explanation of the failure of the bill calling for the actions proposed in this argument is that most legislators were capable of recognizing the simplistic analysis of the problem upon which these actions are based. Rather than providing a demonstration¹⁰ of a lack of concern about this issue, the legislators' votes reveal an understanding of the complexities¹¹ of this problem and an unwillingness¹² to accept simple solutions.

28.       
　　The author concludes that the local transit¹³ company must either reduce tares¹⁴ for the shuttle buses that transport people to then- subway stations or increase parking fees at the stations. The reasons offered to support this conclusionare that commuter¹⁵ use of the subway train is exceeding the transit company's expectations, while commuter use of the shuffle¹⁶ buses is below projected volume. This argument is unconvincing because the author oversimplifies the problem and its solutions in a number of ways.

      To begin with, by concluding that the transit company must either reduce shuttle fares or increase parking fees, the author assumes that these are the only available solutions to the problem of limited shuttle use. However, it is possible that other  factors-such as inconvenient¹⁷ shuttle routing and/or scheduling, safety concerns, or an increase in carpools—contribute to the problem. If so, adjusting fares or parking fees would might not solve the problem.

      In addition, the author assumes that reducing shuttle fees and increasing parking fees are mutually exclusive alternatives. However, the author provides no reason for imposing¹⁸ an either/or choice. Adjusting both shuttle fares and parking fees might produce better results. Moreover, if the author is wrong in the assumption that parking fees and shuttle fees are the only possible causes of the problem, then the most effective solution might include a complex of policy changes—for example, in shuttle fares, parking fees, rerouting, and rescheduling.

      In conclusion, this argument is weak because the author oversimplifies both the problem and its possible solutions. To strengthen the argument the author must examine all factors that might account for the shuttle's unpopularity. Additionally, the author should consider all possible solutions to determine which combination would bring about the greatest increase in shuttle use.