[a习作temp] argument79 后天考试求互拍 [复制链接]

feinuoshare3
UID: 2544093

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 113
注册时间: 2008-9-9
精华: 0
帖子: 6

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-3-25 14:24:21 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 feinuoshare3 于 2009-3-25 15:17 编辑

TOPIC: ARGUMENT79 - The following appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry.
"The Longhaul trucking company was concerned that its annual accident rate (the number of accidents per mile driven) was too high. It granted a significant pay increase to its drivers and increased its training standards. It also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive. The following year, its trucks were involved in half the number of accidents as before the changes were implemented. A survey of other trucking companies found that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident. Therefore, trucking companies wishing to reduce their accident rate can do so simply by raising their drivers' pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive."
WORDS: 471 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2009-3-25 13:48:46

In this argument, the arguer recommends that trucking companies wishing to reduce their accident rate should raise their drivers' pay and limit the overall number of hours they drive. To substantiate this suggestion, the arguer cites the example of Longhaul trucking company (LTC), which had reduced its number of accidents to half the level before implementing the recommended act. In addition, the arguer points out that a survey of other trucking companies has found that the more a driver was paid, the fewer was he or she involved in accidents. While this argument seems well presented, a careful examination would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the arguer fails to convince us that LTC did lower its accident rate simply on the basis of the vague evidences mentioned in this argument. Probably what resulted in the fewer accidents was the decreased miles of driving due to the restriction on the time each driver could drive, and the accident rate, as defined in this argument, did not decline at all.

Secondly, even if LTC is proved to have improved its safety of driving, it is still doubtful whether this improvement was caused by raising the driver's pay and limiting the number of hours they drive. Many other factors, such as the weather condition and the quality of the roads could also have effects on the accident rate. Moreover, perhaps the lower accident rate resulted from higher training standards desired by LTC, as the arguer mentions. Anyway, we could hardly accept that raising drivers' pay and limiting the time of driving were the only causes contributing to the lower accident rate unless other possibilities are ruled out.

Thirdly, the arguer unfairly assumes that there is a causal relationship between a driver's payment and the accident rate; however, this relationship might have been reversed. It is likely that the highest-paid driver actually received this award for the reason that he or she had the lowest accident rate; therefore, this phenomenon could not lend strong support to the arguer's assumption.

Last but not least, simply claiming that raising drivers' pay while limiting the overall number of hours they drive could reduce every trucking company's accident rate may be too hasty and arbitrary. Maybe this act could be effective for LTC because it was the low pay and long working hours that resulted in the high accident rate; however, whether this implementation would also work in other trucking companies needs to be carefully considered in that their high rates of accidents might not be caused by similar reasons as LTC.

In summary, this argument is fraught with vague evidences and unreasonable assumptions. To make the proposal more convincing, the arguer has to turn to more detailed information about the accident rate before and after implementing the recommended act, and provide a complete demonstration on its feasibility.

这一段时间都在看issue，感觉对argument在思路上更有把握一点，但一限时总会有点乱。。。
还是让AWP随机了一篇，而且是没准备过的，求拍！必回拍！