Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
In this argument, the arguer recommends that citizens of Forestville (F) should campaign to reduce F’s speed limit to the former level. This recommendation seems cogent on the surface; however, a careful examination reveals several critical fallacies.
Firstly, the arguer unreasonably assumes that there is a causal relationship between the increase of speed limit and more automobile accidents, based on that fact that the latter occurred after the former. However, the sequence of these events, in itself, does not suffice to prove that the former caused the latter one. The increase of automobile accidents might result from some other events, such as fewer penalties for speeding, a significant boost of vehicles in F. The arguer must consider and eliminate these possible reasons. Otherwise, I cannot accept the arguer’s assertion that the increase of speed limit led to the more automobile accidents.
Secondly, the arguer commits a false analogy between F and Elmsford (E). Perhaps there are much fewer vehicles in E than F. Or perhaps people in E better abide by traffic rules. Both these and other alternatives may account for the decrease of automobile accidents in E. In short, without describing the transportation situations in F and E, this argument by analogy is untenable.
Finally, even if the transportation situations in F and E are comparable, the arguer concludes too hastily that citizens in F should campaign to reduce the speed limit to the former level. First, there are many other options to reduce automobile accidents, such as more severe penalty for speeding, introducing first class public traffic system, etc. Second, even though decrease the speed limit is the only option, there are better procedures to accomplish the task, such as negotiating with government, rather than campaign. Therefore, only with thorough analysis and consideration could the arguer draw any firm conclusion.
In sum, the argument is well reasoned. Only with more detailed information about the reason that led to the increase of automobile accidents and the transportation situations in F and E, could we have a clear picture of the best option.
大家看看能得几分？下面是评语
identies and analyzes important features of the arguemtn
develops and organizes ideas satisfactorily but may not connect them transitions
supports the main points of the critique
demonstrates sufficient control of language to express ideas with reasonable clarity
generally demonstrates control of the conventions of standard written English buy may have some errors.作者: except 时间: 2007-3-24 15:48:01
This argument contains several critical fallacies. First, the implied causal relationship is open to doubt. In addition, the argument’s author commits a false analogy. The argument also makes a hasty generalization. I will discuss each of the fallacies in turn.
First of all, the arguer unreasonably assumes that there is a causal relationship between the increase of speed limit and more automobile accidents, based on that fact that the latter occurred after the former. However, the sequence of these events, in itself, does not suffice to prove that the former caused the latter one. Evidently, the increase of automobile accidents might result from some other events. For example, the local government might decrease penalties for speeding. It might also be the case that there was a significant boost of vehicles in F so that more accidents followed. Therefore, the argument’s author must consider and eliminate these alternative explanations. Otherwise, I cannot accept the arguer’s assertion that the increase of speed limit led to the more automobile accidents.
Even if it is the increase of speed limit that led to more automobile accidents, the arguer fails to consider the differences between F and Elmsford (E). Even though they are neighboring regions, the transportation conditions might differ a lot. For example, the amount of vehicles in F and E is the same? People in E abide by traffic rules as well as people in F? Both of these and other alternative explanations may account for the decrease of automobile accidents in E. Thus, without describing the transportation situations in F and E, this argument by analogy is untenable.
Finally, even if the transportation situations in F and E are comparable, the arguer concludes too hastily that citizens in F should campaign to reduce the speed limit to the former level. In fact, there are many other options to reduce automobile accidents. For instance, the government may enhance the level of penalty for speeding. Or they could introduce first class public traffic system. Furthermore, even though decreasing the speed limit is the only option, there are better procedures to accomplish the task, such as negotiating with government, rather than the campaign. Hence, only with thorough analysis and consideration could the arguer draw any firm conclusion.
In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical on the surface, has several critical fallacies discussed above. To bolster this argument, the arguer must justify the causal relationship. The argument could be further improved by detailed information about transportation conditions in F and E.
"It is unfortunate that today's educators place so much emphasis on finding out what students want to include in the curriculum and then giving it to them. It is the educators' duty to determine the curriculum and the students' duty to study what is presented to them."
I disagree with the author’s assertion that educators should determine what students have to study and students have to follow educators’ opinion. Although students’ ideas have shortcomings to some extent, the educators should pay more attention to students’ needs, rather than their own views.
Admittedly, education aimed at individuals should not be overrated, especially for adolescents. For instance, the teenagers might have no interest in something boring as they think which turns out to be beneficial in the long run. In that case, their own choices might have a negative impact on their further development. Furthermore, it is not practical to fulfill all students' needs due to the inadequate educational resources. And too much freedom of selecting curriculum may result in conflicts and chaos.
However, this is not to say that educators should decide students’ curriculum without concerning student’s ideas. If so, students’ learning may be inhibited. For supporting evidence, one may look no further than the educator-oriented education. Compared to the student-oriented one, educator-oriented education fails to consider students’ desires, molding the mind, imagination and creativity of each student. As a consequence, all of the students are the same models cast by one mold. Consider, for example, the Chinese students. Deeply influenced by the traditional educator-centered educational system, they follow educators’ every word, even regarding the word as golden principles. Even though they have an idea, they are afraid to express themselves and choose to be reticent. Although this kind of education seems effective as for examinations, it counts for nothing when it comes to researches and paper writing. Moreover, the Ministry of Education of China has made the policy that without passing an English examination, one student cannot obtain his Bachelor Degree even he is a straight A student! It is entirely possible that this student has no interest in English, but he is talented at Mathematics. Possibly, another Descartes may lose the opportunity to dedicate his life to analytic geometry. Therefore, if the educators’ duty is to decide students’ curriculum, this kind of education is not effective.
Finally, personal interests are the best motivations. If education is specially designed to meet individuals’ needs, we can make full use of all the facilities it provides, which may arouse our starvation in one field, thus further human beings’ steps. Take 1965 Nobel Prize laureate in Chemistry Woodward as an example. Woodward was attracted to chemistry at a very early age and indulged his taste for chemistry in private activities throughout the period of his primary and secondary education. He entered MIT in 1933, when he was only 16. During his first year, he always audited graduate courses, while he sometimes missed the normal courses. Although involvement with Chemistry at the expense of other subjects caused his suspension for a semester, it also resulted in his collaboration on three research papers. After that, h in order to cultivate this genius, MIT arranged a large number of courses for him alone. Under these circumstances, he earned his Bachelor Degree and PhD with excellence in only four years. And he synthesized the most complex natural product Vitamin B12 in 1971, which turned the science of total synthesis into an art. Clearly, it was just the special education he received; aiming at meeting individual’s needs that made him the father of modern organic synthesis. Thus, education which emphasizes students’ needs may facilitate their study.
In conclusion, I do not think it is unfortunate that today’s educators emphasize too much on student’s interests. Despite the fact that there are limitations for students when selecting curriculum, the duty of educators is to provide students variety and choices to a certain degree.作者: achillesheel 时间: 2007-3-25 01:21:06
present a well-considered position on the issue
develops the position with logically sound reasons and/or well-chosen examples
is focused and generally well organized, connecting ideas appropriately
express ideas clearly and well, using appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety
denmonstrates facility with the convetions of standard written English but may have minor errors作者: achillesheel 时间: 2007-3-25 01:21:37