Grammer Help!!!!

According to what the argument stated above, we can find an obvious conclusion that A caused B. This result, however, is rooted from two assumptions. First of all, the argument assumed that there is a necessary connection between A and B. Then, it supposed that some factors rather than A effects B. Nevertheless, the two assumptions have not a leg to stand on.





The reason that the argument said A caused B is A occurred before B. But it is known for us that two phenomenon having time sequence relationship do not possess necessary connection. Otherwise, we can envision a fact that C caused B. What a ridiculous conclusion it is!



The reason that the argument said A caused B is that A is a partial data and B is a overall data. But it is known for us that the part thing can not represent the whole and the whole may not express the part because the part thing has its own distinctiveness while the whole thing has its own generality. Otherwise, we can envision a fact that C caused B. What a ridiculous conclusion it is!



Is that A and B have somewhat similarities in a respect of C. However, after all, A and B are not quite the same. Thus, the necessary connection may not exists between the two things. Otherwise, we can envision a similar conclusion that C caused B. What a ridiculous conclusion it is!



The argument has been regarded B as an correct fact and has been used in the reasoning process before the argument concludes. However, it makes a circular reasoning mistake, that is, the reasoning process the argument stated can be simplified to a conclusion---B caused B. While this new conclusion does not relate to A in essential of the reasoning process.



The view that there is a necessary relationship between A and B in the reasoning process of the argument does not restrict. Because the argument must promise the existence of C in order to reason out B. However, according to the reasoning process of the argument, we can discovery that the author subjective considered C as necessary existence. But to demonstrate the question whether the C absolutely exist we can not depends on one’s assumption but the well-established evidence. As a result, the imprecision of reasoning process makes the conclusion that A caused B is unconvincing.



Firstly, the argument only considered such a partial fact that if A exists, then B exists. But the common sense tell us that the people possessed A basically have the B thing while those having B basically have not the A thing. The primary factor is that A is a dynamic process to describe something while B emphasizes a static result of this thing. In addition, the relationship between the dynamic and static is not certain. Thus, these factors make the conclusion that A caused B is unconvincing.



Firstly, the reasoning process of the argument is comparing the two things, A and B. But the result of comparing A and B reflects the probability proportionate to size. Based on our scientific knowledge, the probability proportionate reflects the percent of all group when it satisfied every conditions. In the reasoning process of the argument, however, the author just only compared the volume of two groups that met the conditions while neglected the total quantity which affects the probability value. Thus, we can find this comparison is such a kind of absolute contrast , not a relative contrast and it makes the conclusion that A and B have a necessary connection is unconvincing.



Secondly, it is obvious for us that B is the conclusion of the argument. But based on our common sense, we can discuss B from different aspects, such as C, D, E. However, in the statement of the argument, we can not find that whether the factors except A, like C, D, E do exist and that A is outweighs C, D, E to affect B. Therefore, in this condition, the statement of the argument which only regarded A as the factor of influencing B is subjective assertion.



In a word, this reasoning has some limitation. If the author can rectify the mistakes above and offer extra evidence to demonstrate the truth of the existence of A and B. Thus, this reasoning will become more precise.