Argument119 寄托4人组 8-10

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

Argument119  第5篇 寄托4人组！
------摘要------
作者：BridgeWalker     共用时间：40分     419 words
2005年8月10日
------题目------
The following is a letter to the editor of the Waymarsh Times.
'Traffic problems here in Waymarsh are obviously reaching record levels. While just three months ago it would take me 15 minutes to get to work, it now takes closer to 25. Waymarsh should follow the example of our neighboring city Gearsville. Last year, Gearsville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work with coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Gearsville have dropped since the policy was implemented, and several friends who live in Gearsville tell me that their trip to work is quicker than it used to be. With the terrible traffic and high pollution in Waymarsh, we must implement a policy similar to Gearsville's.'
------提纲------
B1:Driving上班用时增加不是traffic造成的。（车速、路线。）
B2:G地pollution level下降不是由于它的Policy。
（汽车造成的污染微不足道，污染减轻归功于industry；Policy实际上增加污染。）
B3:G地的Policy在解决traffic problem时没有效果。
（时间缩短有他因；即使有效也不大，无借鉴价值。）
------正文------
In this argument the speaker attributed his or her more time on driving to the traffic problem of Waymarsh. In addition, the speaker suggests that Waymarsh must adopt policy form Gearsville to solve its terrible traffic and high pollution. After a careful scrutiny, I find it unconvincing due to the flaws listed below.

To begin with, the speaker’s assumption that spending more time on driving to work is caused by traffic problem in Waymarsh is suspicious. Driving 25 minutes might have other reason except the traffic. Firstly, it is quite possible that the speaker drives slower than before. If he or she reduces the speed from 70 miles per hour to 40, the total amount of time will certainly be increased. Secondly, even if the speaker does not change the driving speed, there is might be another reason for the time increasing. For example, if the driver changes the route to his or her workplace from a short one to a long one, more time will be required to get there.

Additionally, the speaker assumes that the dropping of pollution level in Gearsville is attributed to its share-ride policy. In the first place, there is no evidence showing that the pollution in Gearsville is caused by cars. If air pollution from cars only contribute a tiny part to the whole amount including industries, the dropping of pollution may be unlikely because of the policy, but unknown pollution decreasing from industries. In the second place, since this policy uses free gas to encourage people to share rides, more gases might be consumed by cars. As a result, the policy actually has no effect in abetting pollution by increasing it.

Moreover, the effectiveness of Gearsville's policy on solving traffic problem is unfounded. On the one hand, speaker's friends' quicker trip to work may be not as a result of the share rides. Other explanation such as speeding up, finding a short route and getting out of home earlier when there are fewer cars on the road can make the trip quicker. On the other hand, if the policy really has effect on lightening traffic jam, its effectiveness might be questionable. For instance, if the policy reduces residents' average time to work from 30 minutes to 28 minutes, it would be worthless for Wsymarsh to adopt it.

In sum, the argument is vulnerable due to weak points presented above. In order to make it more persuasive, the true effect of the share-ride policy on traffic and pollution must be examined by scientists.

meautoUID: 2116250

In this argument the speaker attributedattributes his or her more time on driving to the traffic problem of Waymarsh. In addition,开头从这里开始似乎更合适一些，指出结论就够了。 the speaker suggests that Waymarsh must adopt policy form Gearsville to solve its terrible traffic and high pollution. After a careful scrutiny, I find it unconvincing due to the flaws listed below.

To begin with, the speaker’s assumption that spending more time on driving to work is caused by traffic problem in Waymarsh is suspicious. Driving 25 minutes might have other reason except the traffic. Firstly, it is quite possible that the speaker drives slower than before. If he or she reduces the speed from 70 miles per hour to 40, the total amount of time will certainly be increased increase. Secondly, even if the speaker does not change the driving speed, there isdelete is might be another reason for the time increasing. For example, if这个地方换成Equally possible is that 简洁些:Dthe driver changes the route to his or her workplace from a short one to a long one, more time will be required to get there.
降速的反驳点不好。作者故意降速的同时又抱怨花在路上的时间变长了，这太不合情理了。

这个题目的前提，也就是最基本的错误就在与W的污染和交通问题很严重。第二段说花在路上的时间长了，是由于其他而不是交通的原因。在从正面强调下可能W根本没有交通问题更好的说。
其次，作者和朋友的个人经历能代表大众么？


Additionally, the speaker assumes that the dropping of pollution level in Gearsville is attributed to its share-ride policy. In the first place, there is no evidence showing that the pollution in Gearsville is caused by cars.稍微改动下，前一句说没有证据表明汽车造成污染，后一句马上就写汽车造成的污染可能不大，怪的说。 If air pollution from cars only contribute a tiny part to the whole amount including industries,所有的污染including industries？ the dropping of pollution may be unlikely because of the policy, 这个be unlikely because of 怎么这么别扭。have nothing to do with but unknown pollution decreasing from industries. In the second place, since this policy uses free gas to encourage people to share rides, more gases might be consumed by cars. As a result, the policy actually has no effect in abetting pollution by increasing it.这句没看懂。
什么叫unknown pollution decreasing from industries? 难道就不能说是strict control on industry exhaustion吗？具体的好啊。
第2点没有分析清楚。人们上班share rides, coupon却鼓励人们在其他的地方用车了。你的share rides和more gas之间跳了一层关系。

Moreover, the effectiveness of Gearsville's policy on solving traffic problem is unfounded.前句说P对交通问题无用，后句就是朋友上班快了有别的原因 ，到底有没有交通问题呢？ On the one hand, speaker's friends' quicker trip to work may be not as a result of the share rides. Other explanation such as speeding up, finding a short route and getting out of home earlier when there are fewer cars on the road can make the trip quicker. On the other hand, if the policy really has effect on lightening traffic jam, its effectiveness might be questionable.自相矛盾 For instance, if the policy reduces residents' average time to work from 30 minutes to 28 minutes, it would be worthless for Wsymarsh to adopt it.
感觉我给粗体线的句子写的很费。
你反驳的习惯是：说A好是有问题的，比如。。。所以A还是不好。BU不如说:A可能不好,因为..........
比你反驳的问题更基础的是P真的有改善了G城的交通么？毕竟只是几个朋友的话，能代表普遍的事实么？
你那个降速的POLICY又是哪里来的？粗体的句子和后面也不搭，应该是P不适合W城吧

In sum, the argument is vulnerable due to weak points presented above. In order to make it more persuasive, the true effect of the share-ride policy on traffic and pollution must be examined by scientists.

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

感觉我的阿狗还没摸着门。先汗一个！

As a result, the policy actually has no effect in abetting pollution by increasing it.这句没看懂。

by应该改为but。 打错了。

[ Last edited by bridgewalker on 2005-8-10 at 20:48 ]