[a习作temp] Argument151 有拍必回 [复制链接]

乳虎
UID：2251211

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 16
寄托币: 645
注册时间: 2006-9-10
精华: 0
帖子: 40

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-7-27 09:28:02 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

151The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper.

提纲：
1作者错误的假设当初桥修的宽些好些就不会出交通问题。
2作者错误的将两座桥简单对比。
3作者没有考虑到Atticus City的发展可能出乎Former Mayor Durant的预料。

"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."

In this argument, the arguer claim that former Mayor Durant awes an apology to the city of Atticus because of his Negligence and wastefulness of Dorant. In order to supourt his or her critic, the arguer cites that the bridge engender many traffic problems and deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years. The arguer reasons that if the bridge had been built wider, there would be no those problems and Former Mayor Durant is attribuable to the mistake. In my opinion, it is not fair to fomer Mayor Durants.

In the first place the arguer falsely assumes that if Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, none of the traffic problem would occurred. In fact there are many factors might account for to the traffic problems. Maybe there are too many cars and walkers on the bridge so than the bridge become too crowded. It is also possible that to many people traverse the bridge. Either scenario, if true, might offset the increase of bridge’s width and the improvement of bridge’s designation.

In the second place, the arguer simply compare the River Bridge with Derby Bridge. Commonsense informs that there are many factors might influence the speed of a bridge to deteriorate, not only the length. Maybe there are much more traffic on the River Bridge than on the Derby Bridge, which will render the River Bridge deteriorate faster than the Derby Bridge. Because the Failure of the arguer to take account into and eliminate those alternative explanation, he or she is doomed to fail to make any sound critic.

Last but not the least, the arguer’s critic rely on a poor assumption that Durant can predict the development of Accitus city. It is totally possible that when the bridge was bridge, the place where it located is the frontier of the city, and there were not so many cars and people passing the bridge, so it was not necessary to build a wider and better-designed bridge. Nevertheless, as the development of Accitus city, the place gradually became the center of the city, therefore there are too many cars and people passing the bridge. In that case, Durant is not to blame.

To sum up, the arguer commits a series of logical flaws which make his or her critic not fair. In order to consolidate it, the arguer must persuasive us that if Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, none traffic problem would occur. In addition the arguer must ensure other factors of the River Bridge and the Derby Bridge the same. To better access the critic, we should know whether Durant can envision the development of Atticus city.

[ 本帖最后由乳虎于 2007-7-27 09:16 编辑 ]