| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27. Based upon a correlation1 between increases in movie violence and crime rates in
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
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
means that the author is committed to the view that, for the most part, the perpetrators
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
accept simple solutions.
点击收听单词发音
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TAG标签:
- 发表评论
-
- 最新评论 进入详细评论页>>