Argument18,我的第一篇

yayahanUID: 2667719

TOPIC: ARGUMENT18 - The following appeared in an editorial in a Prunty County newspaper.
"In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from 55 miles per hour to 45 on all major county roads. But the 55 mph limit should be restored, because this safety effort has failed. Most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly. If we want to improve the safety of our roads, we should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than there were five years ago."
WORDS: 498          TIME: 00:35:00          DATE: 2009-7-20 10:54:04
Based on the mere fact the author draw the conclusion that Prunty Country should undertake the same kind of road improvement project as the Butler did five years ago. To justify this conclusion, the author points out that the Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from 55 miles per hour to 45 but most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly. The author also provides the evidence that the Butler County completed a project five years ago which lane widths and resurfacing rough roads. Close scrutiny of this argument appeals several unconvincing aspects.
First and foremost, the author thinks that the 55 mph limit should be restored because this safety effort has failed. In order to support this judgment, the author show that most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly. Common sense tells us that every new policy will not make a effect result within a short time. The driver maybe just unfamiliar with this rule and it is entirely possible that the road condition will be better after they know the rule and obey it. In addition, the author points out that the accident decreased only slightly. There is no proof to convince me that "slightly" is not good, something is better than nothing, and the improvement project has made an  achievement even though it is slightly within a short time can show great that it is very successful.
Moreover, even though the foregoing assumption is correct, the author build the conclusion on that that Butler County’s improvement project has gain a successful effect, there is no founded evidence to show that. And the record five years ago cannot prove anything since everything may change during such long time period
Finally, even if the rule is unsuccessful and did not make an effort, the author show that the Prunty County should undertake the same kind of road improvement project as the Butler did five years ago because the Butler County completed a project five years ago which lane widths and resurfacing rough roads. The author’s statement suffers from several unsubstantiated fallacy. First, the whole argument provide no adequate evidence that the Prunty County's highway safety problems is caused by the road bad conditions, and if this is the case , there is entirely necessary to increase the lane width and resurface the rough road. Second, even if the road conditions are bad, author fails to consider about the differences between the two locations. The Butler County place's condition cannot be suitable for Prunty's. We couldn’t blindly copy others' approaches without considering about our own situations.
To sum up, the author's conclusion base on the mere fact. Unless the author provides the reason the accidents happened on the highway and the proof that current project is not good enough, or provide the Bulter's condition fits us perfectly, the argument cannot convince me at all.  


第一次发贴找人改作文～～ 希望大家帮帮忙咯～～  我8月初就考啦 现在很紧张呃   请多多指教～～

顺顺溜溜UID: 2665740

看完楼主的习作，发现几处小问题：
1. 第二段 First and foremost后的一句话貌似跟首段中重复，可以考虑换换陈述方式。
2. 第二段中个人觉得应该把批判重点放在：不是限速措施本身不成功，而是司机没有遵守新规定而导致事故发生。而且在多数司机都不遵守新规定的情况下，整体事故率还有微量下降，这证明新限速措施还是成功的
3. 第三段对于跟5年前B的措施的比较给予的批判不够，太单薄，过去对现在，又是不同地点，找出不可比性，举几个例子就更好了，随便想几个可能性就ok
4. 楼主注意一下几个3单的错误，比如 the author draw, the author build等
以上是个人愚见，如有错误请多指教，日后若有问题也希望能与楼主再次讨论，谢谢！

yayahanUID: 2667719

谢谢大虾～～
非常感谢能帮忙哈～～  不过段首的时候难道不能再和首段重复么～～ 貌似我用的cut paste的说。。为了节省时间。。
以后注意咯～ 另外不知道这位仁兄在写argument 的时候有没有感觉其实最难的 不是把逻辑漏洞找出来而是如何把它们表达出来呢。。。  我最近一直为如何构造语言痛苦中。。。

不论如何非常感谢帮忙 如果有帮助我一定尽力哈

2# 顺顺溜溜