Argument Template
First paragraph:
In this Argument, the author concludes that/the author predicts that/the author proposes that/ attempts or intends to convince us that —–The conclusion/The prediction/The suggestion is mainly based on —– +
Question: However, several important questions are left unaddressed, rendering the author’s reasoning open to possible counterarguments. ； However, the author needs to address several important questions so that readers can be convinced of her argument.
Assumption: However, underlying his/her line of reasoning are several problematic assumptions, which render his/her argument vulnerable to possible counterarguments.
However, his/her argument is filled with unwarranted assumptions that significantly undermine its cogency.
Evidence: However, the evidence is insufficient to fully warrant his/her conclusion and more information is needed before readers can fully accept his/her reasoning.
However, he/she needs to offer additional evidence before he/she can forcefully draw a conclusion.
Alternative: However, alternative possibilities are not fully addressed, rendering his/her theory open to doubt.
However, he/she fails to take into consideration other possible explanations that can equally account for the phenomena presented in the passage.
Main Body:
It is correct that —, however, —
Admittedly, take it for granted, granted that, assuming that, now that, even if/ assuming, —
While this may be true in some cases, it is equally possible that —
While the argument has some merits, there are a few assumptions that deserve careful/further attention.
There mere fact that — is insufficient evidence to conclude that —
The argument fails to rule out the possibility that —
The argument fails to consider and rule out other factors that might account for —
Lacking more information about —, it is impossible to access the reliability of survey results or to make an informed recommendation.
But no evidence is provided to show that —
The claim/evidence/assumption that — is far from being proved
Substantiating this assumption requires —.
A threshold problem with this argument involves a survey/study/research itself. The statistical reliability of the survey/study/research is really questionable. Namely, the speaker provides no evidence that the number of respondents is statistically significant or that the respondents were representative of — in general. That is to say, this survey merely involves — A and B—. It is entirely possible that A and B are not representative of —.
The survey cited by the author is too vague to be informative. The claim does not indicate who conducted the poll, who responded, when, where, and how the poll was conducted. Lacking information about the cardinal base number of people surveyed and the number of respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For example —. Since the argument offers no evidence that would rule out this kind of interpretation, the results of the survey are worthless as evidence for the conclusion.
We are told nothing about the way the survey was conducted and how well it represented public concern.
Another problem with this argument is that the statistical evidence upon which it relies is too vague to be informative.
The number/amount of samples/survey/poll, in itself, does not ensure representativeness. Lacking the total/base/cardinal numbers of subjects/specimens/those surveyed, only a simple percentage cannot represent a typical and convincing number/amount of people/other things —.
The arguer tries to use a quantity to support the assumption. However, the arguer fails to indicate the percentage of —. Accordingly, this evidence is far too vague to be meaningful.
Only a statistical/ large/small quantity without the cardinal number of those surveyed is untrustworthy, the proportion would be small/large when it comes to a large/ small base number of total respondents, which would render the quantity of the survey meaningless.
The respondents must be statistically significant in number and representative of the overall —.
Without offering the percentage of respondents to those surveyed, only the proportion of respondents who supported the specific ideas cannot reasonably substantiate the statement.
Without any demonstration of the credibility of people’s attitudes, the arguer cannot make a conclusion so curtly and hastily.
Due to the fact of A and B, the arguer fails to convince us that A will contribute to B. For example, the arguer simply equates success with movie ticket sales, which is unwarranted. The increase/success/change/improvement/failure in — is mainly/largely due to/ results from the fact that —.
Another problem that undermines the argument is that the arguer overlooks other factors that result in the fact that —. In order to properly conclude that —, the arguer must rule out all other feasible explanations for the disparity.
The argument ignores the factors – such as — – that may be more important than the choice of —
The premise that — could not certainly lead to the result that —, in other words, the consequence does not entail the premise.
The arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the fact that — and the claim that —
The argument is unacceptable unless there is compelling evidence to support the connection/correlation between those two events/aspects.
Perhaps there is no close or causal relationship between A and B. If so, from common sense, A is always a response to B, while the arguer unwarrantedly considers A as a cause of B.
Based on the fact that B occurred after A, the arguer infers/assumes that the former happened and should be responsible for the latter one. However, without convincing proof, the sequence of events does not suffice to indicate/establish a causal relationship between them. It is entirely possible that B results from several other factors, such as –. Thus, without ruling out possible factors like this, the arguer cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between A and B.
The argument observes a correlation between A and B and then concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. However, the arguer fails to rule out other possible explanations. Without ruling out all other factors it is unfair to conclude that A is responsible for B.
The author uses the positive correlation between A and B to establish causality. However, the fact that A coincides with B does not necessarily prove that A caused B. This is obviously fallacious reasoning unless other possible causal explanations have been considered and ruled out. For example, perhaps C is the case of these events, or perhaps B is caused by D.
No evidence has been offered to support/substantiate the assumption that A must be attributable to B. While A is an important contributing factor to B, it is not the only such factor. The arguer fails to account for other alternative explanations, such as —
The arguer is failing to consider other possible alternatives to –. Such alternatives may include that —. It is possible that —. In addition, the author fails to consider —. Perhaps —-. Without taking these possibilities into account, the author cannot persuade me that —-.
The fact/sample happened — years ago/ happened in city YY is not sound evidence to draw the conclusion that —. The author assumes without justification that background conditions have remained the same at different times or at different locations. Thus it is impossible/unwarranted/unconvincing to conclude that —
The author assumes without justification that past conditions would remain unchanged in the present and the future. The arguer infers a similar situation now/in the future from a past/present fact. The survey was conducted — years ago which is unwarranted because things rarely remain the same over extended periods of time. There are totally likely differences between the past situation and the future, which would not lead to the same success in the present or the future.
Another problem with the argument is that the stated similarities between A and B are insufficient to support the conclusion that A will suffer a fate similar to B. It is possible that the sales trend in a particular location is not representative of sales in other regions.
There is absolutely no reason to believe/accept that the trend/tendency in this particular region is representative of the entire state/country.
The argument relies on what might be a faulty analogy between A and B, The analogy falsely depends on the assumption that — both A and B are similar, It is entirely possible that A and B differ a lot from several aspects, such as —/
To strengthen the argument, instead of relying on a dubious analogy between A and B, the arguer should supply convincing evidence, perhaps by way of a survey or a marketing program at A, to prove that A will indeed reap similar benefits from this kind of method/step.
The arguer fails to provide complete information concerning the effect of the policy. Even if the policy could take effect and make a considerable profit, the arguer also draws a conclusion that the policy would almost take the same effect in our local city which is totally based on a faulty analogy. Without accounting for important possible differences between A and B, the arguer cannot reasonably prove the proposed method with help B succeed/ make a considerable profit in the future.
The author unfairly assumes that the nationwide/statewide/local tendency — is specifically applicable to local/nationwide/statewide situations, lacking warranted/convincing evidence to demonstrate it.
Another problem with the argument is that it assumes that the nationwide/statewide statistics about — apply equally to the specific local situations. Yet this might not be the case, for a variety of possible reasons. Perhaps, —. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that –.
The argument rests on the assumption that the situation of the city — typify the nationwide/statewide one. Nevertheless, it is not always necessarily the case. It is entirely possible that —. Thus/ Consequently, lacking more marketing information about —, it is insufficient/ unwarranted/ unreasonable to access the merit of this recommendation.
Only focusing on one side of the event, the arguer draws a slanted conclusion that —-. Due to other possible aspects, such as cost and unexpected recession, it is entirely possible that the disadvantages of the policy outweigh the advantages. Without analyzing and weighing the advantages and disadvantages thoroughly, the argument cannot guarantee undoubtedly making a considerable/positive profit/success.
It is highly possible that other factors may have contributed to B. For instance, — Without ruling out these and other possible factors that give rise to B the author cannot confidently conclude that —
The author’s conclusion that — is unwarranted. Profit is a factor of not only revenue but also costs. It is entirely possible that the cost of —, or other costs associated with —, will offset, even outweigh the revenue. Besides, a myriad of other possible occurrences, such as unfavorable economic conditions, or unexpected economic recessions, might prevent — from being as profitable in the foreseeable future as the argument predicts.
Contingencies such as market changes, competition, material, and labor cost legislative moves, and the national or international economic cycle can lead to dropping profit.
The final paragraph
Overall, the author needs to take into consideration all aforementioned questions and supplement a series of unsupported assumptions before she can legitimately conclude that —
