- 最后登录
- 2009-8-11
- 在线时间
- 107 小时
- 寄托币
- 207
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2005-5-6
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 159
- UID
- 208982
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 207
- 注册时间
- 2005-5-6
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
31The following appeared in the editorial section of a newsmagazine. 禁用手机
"Some states are creating new laws that restrict the use of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles. Such legislation, however, is sheer folly. Although some people with cell phones undoubtedly cause problems on the road, including serious accidents, the majority do not. Besides, problems are also caused by drivers who are distracted by any number of other activities, from listening to the radio to disciplining children. Since there is no need to pass legislation restricting these and other such activities, it follows that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient—or helpful in emergencies."
*****************************************************************
还想请教一下:最后一句有什么点可以批驳的吗?there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient—or helpful in emergencies."
*****************************************************************
In this argument, the author claims that the legislations that restrict the use of handled cell phones by drivers of automobiles in some states are unnecessary and folly. However, several critical flaws render the argument invalid and unwarranted.
First, the fact that the majority of drivers with cell phones do not cause accidents does not make the restriction unnecessary. For as is known to all, law functions as warning and prevention of the potential crime and delinquency, in this case, minimizing the occurrence of the traffic accidents. Even if there is only a small number of drivers who use cell phones while driving cause accidents, the legislation that restricts the use will be justified.
In addition, admitting that on average the number of drivers who use cell phones and cause traffic tragedies is negligible as the author implies, we can not exclude the possibility that in some states such legislation is needed. Because in some states, the accidents caused by drivers distracted by cell phones are far more than the national average. In other words, the author can not guarantee the general case he stated applies to the "some states" in question.
Finally, the author commits "false analogy" when he cites other activities, such as listening to the radio and disciplining children, which there is no need to be restricted, as evidence for his claim. Nevertheless, using cell phones while driving is distinctive for such activities in nature, which makes restriction on it necessary. For one thing, talking on a phone requires the driver to move his hand from the sheering wheel to hold the phone, which reduces his control over the wheel. For another thing, one can not predict when the phone rings, so it increases the risk of driving. Also, when the driver is talking on the phone, he or she is distracted from driving to a larger extent than, say listening to the radio, for he listens to the radio just for entertainment while he may be talking about something important over the phone. In a word, restriction on the use of the cell phones by drivers may be indispensable though there is no need banning listening to the radio or disciplining children.
To sum up, the author's claim those legislations that restrict the use of handled cell phones by drivers of automobiles in some states are unnecessary and folly is problematic and thus unconvincing. On the contrary, it is entirely possible that such restriction is necessary and crucial for the residents in the states. |
|