Argument70 (模考15)

pinuoUID：2328081

TOPIC: ARGUMENT70 - Studies show that in 70 percent of traffic accidents, at least one driver involved is less than 10 miles from home when the accident occurs. This statistic indicates that drivers have a tendency to drive incautiously when they are close to home, probably because familiar surroundings give them a false sense of security. Thus, the places where people feel safest are the places where they are in fact at greatest risk of serious injury.
WORDS: 439          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-9-6 18:11:18
InitialThe author, in the material, draws the conclusion that people are at greatest risk of serious injury when they are in the places where they feel safest according to the study of traffic accidents. The arguments is problematic in several aspects, thus render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the author fails to provide detail information of the traffic accidents, it is highly possible there are some factors--rather the drivers--caused the accident. For example, the weather, there perhaps were heavy raining during the period of study, which mainly contributed to the accidence. And it is also possible the bad road condition, such as the sharp turn, or deep up and down, resulted in the accidents. And myriad possible shoud be considered. Without considering and ruling out such factors which might cause the accidents the final argument is unpersuasive.

In addition, even if I were to concede that the drivers should be responsible for the accidents, the author provide absulotely know evidence that the drivers involved in the accidents are familiar with the places where accidents occured. Though common sense and experience tell us the people must be familiar with the place less than 10 miles from their home, it is possible the drivers not familiar with these place consider their special profession--they are required to work far away from the home in most of their work time. And if the most of drivers involved in the accidents were just moved to these places, it will be not too hard to explain why they were not familiar with the places where eccidents occured. Without substantiate the assumption that the driver familiar with the surrounding, the further conclusion based on it is undermined.

Finally, even the author can subsantiate the ongoing assumption by providing evidence that the drivers involved in the accidents are familiar with the surrounding,  it cannot prove that the driver are incautiously. It is entirely possible the accidents is caused by there poor skills. The further driving training might be a constructive suggestion. And the author fails to infom us that the inccidents related to these drivers cause serious injury, they perhaps just the small inccident and caused light risk.

In sum, to cinvince me that the people are likely to be at greatest risk of serious injury in the place they feel safest, the author need to rule out other factors which may cause the inccidents. And the author also need to present clear evidence that the drivers involved are familiar with the surroundings of their home. To better assess the argument, I need the evidence that the accidents were caused by the drivers incaustiousness.

pinuoUID：2328081

The author, in the material, draws the conclusion that people are at greatest risk of serious injury when they are in the places where they feel safest according to the study of traffic accidents. The arguments is problematic in several aspects, thus render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the author fails to provide detail information of the traffic accidents. It is highly possible there are some factors--rather the drivers--caused the accident. For example, the weather, there perhaps is heavy raining during the period of study, which mainly contributed to the accidence. And it is also possible the bad road condition, such as the sharp turn, or deep up and down, resulted in the accidents. And myriad possible should be considered. Without considering and ruling out such factors which might cause the accidents the final argument is unpersuasive.

In addition, even if I were to concede that the drivers should be responsible for the accidents, the author provide absolutely no evidence that the drivers involved in the accidents are familiar with the places where accidents occur. Though common sense and experience tell us the people must be familiar with the place less than 10 miles from their home, it is possible the drivers not familiar with these places consider their special profession--they are required to work far away from the home in most of their work time. And if the most of drivers involved in the accidents were just moved to these places, it will be not too hard to explain why they were not familiar with the places where accidents occurred. Without substantiate the assumption that the driver familiar with the surrounding, the further conclusion based on it is undermined.

Finally, even the author can substantiate the ongoing assumption by providing evidence that the drivers involved in the accidents are familiar with the surrounding,  it cannot prove that the drivers are incautiously. It is entirely possible the accidents is caused by there poor skills. The further driving training might be a constructive suggestion. And the author fails to inform us that the accidents related to these drivers cause serious injury, they perhaps just the small accident and caused light risk.

In sum, to convince me that the people are likely to be at greatest risk of serious injury in the place where they feel safest, the author need to rule out other factors which may cause the accidents. And the author also need to present clear evidence that the drivers involved are familiar with the surroundings of their home. To better assess the argument, I need the evidence that the accidents were caused by the drivers’ incautiousness.