[a习作temp] argument119 情人节机井,请指教,19就考试了,谢谢大家 [复制链接]

amberyang1221
UID: 2315591

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 407
注册时间: 2007-3-17
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-2-15 12:56:23 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT119 - 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."

The letter's author recommends that the authority in W must implement a policy similar to G that rewards people who share rides to work with coupons for free so that the terrible traffic and high pollution in W can be solved. To justify his or her claim, the author provide the fact that it takes more time to work than 3 months ago,. Meanwhile, the author points out that the pollution levels in G have dropped since the policy was implemented, then he or she points out that some friends who live in G tell him or her that their trip to work is quicker that it used to be . Careful consideration, however, on the author's reasoning process reveals several untenable points.

First, the increased time for the author to work can not be a substantiated evidence that the traffic problem in W is extremely terrible. It is entirely that there was some road constructions on his or her way to work , which can be finished in several months. Moreover, the mere fact reported by the author may not be representative of the overall traffic status quo.

Secondly, the author cites the example of the neighboring city G that the pollution levels have dropped since the policy was implemented. However, the author commits a fallacy of concurrence. After all, the correlation between the changes and the policy merely on time could not prove that the latter causes the former. Furthermore,common sense tells me that the types of the pollution are caused not only by cars but also by industrial or other reasons. Finally, the several friends' suggestion may not be the strong evidence that reflect the practical situation in G.

Thirdly, the author fails to provide any profile concerning the differences between the 2 cities. In any event, the problems they face can not be simply solved by the same avenues, since no information about the traffic density, demographic structure, and the road status and the forth were listed for analysis. Another crucial point is that whether or not there are terrible pollution problems can not merely answered by the author's statement. The author should convince us by presenting several statistical analysis.

In sum, the argument rests on several unsubstantiated points and therefore is unpersuasive. To strengthen it, the author must provide some statistics to reflect the practical status quo in traffic problems and pollution in W. Also, he or she should make a clear correlation between the betterment of pollution an the policy implemented in G. To better assess the argument, I would need more information about the discrepancy of Wand G, and about the pollution status in W.