[a习作temp] 【Flyer杀G作文组】第二次作业6月25日Augment79-By afufu1124 [复制链接]

afufu1124
UID：2786856

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 185
注册时间: 2010-3-25
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-6-26 01:25:35 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

The conclusion in this argument is that trucking companies only need to raise their drivers’ pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive in order to reduce the accident rate. Upon first impression the claim seems quite compelling. The author first substantiate this conclusion by pointing out that the payment is increasing and the driving time is decreasing so that the working condition of drivers changes significantly. Moreover, the author further bolsters his conclusion by examples that in the following year, its trucks were involved in less number of accidents than before and the survey of other trucking companies reveals the negative relationship between the payment and accident rate. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, indicates that one of them lend credible support to the recommendations.

To begin with, the argument assumes without justification that the change of drivers’ payment and working time is enough significant, while the description is vague and oversimplified. To be specifically, little information was provided about the how much the payment increases and the driving time decreases.
What’s more, the original payment maybe unusually lower than the normal standard. Therefore, lacking these relevant information, it is not possibly to assess whether this is the case as claimed.

Secondly, in the line of reasoning, the author contributes reduction of accident rate to the implementation of new rules, basing on the facts cited. However, there exist possibility that the decrease of accident rate is merely a response to better traffic conditions. Perhaps, for example, less traffic on the road. Since the author has failed to account for this possibility, the claim is unwarranted.

Finally, the author include a survey of other trucking companies finding that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident. The editorial neglects to indicate how recently the survey was actually conducted and how similar the companies is to Longhaul trucking company. Unless these questions are answered, the survey results are worthless as basis for the claim.

All in all, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions. To strengthen the argument the author would have to demonstrate that how many changes have been made,
prove the causal effect and specific information of the companies surveyed. Only by doing so can it be called an optimal claim and most importantly, stand the test of time.

回应
0

使用道具举报

红绡
UID：2839171

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 8
寄托币: 291
注册时间: 2010-6-22
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2010-6-27 22:53:57 |只看该作者

本帖最后由红绡于 2010-6-27 22:56 编辑

1# afufu1124

修改-by潇
The conclusion in this argument is that trucking companies only need to raise their drivers’ pay and limiting（limit） the overall number of hours they drive in order to reduce the accident rate. Upon first impression the claim seems quite compelling. The author first substantiates this conclusion by pointing out that the payment is increasing and the driving time is decreasing so that the working condition of drivers changes significantly. Moreover, the author further bolsters his conclusion by examples that in the following year, its trucks were involved in less number of accidents than before and the survey of other trucking companies reveals the negative(用inverse感觉更合适) relationship between the payment and accident rate. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, indicates that one of them lends credible support to the recommendations.

To begin with, the argument assumes without justification that the change of drivers’ payment and working time is enough significant, while the description is vague and oversimplified. To be specifically, little information was provided about the how much the payment increases and the driving time decreases. What’s more, the original payment may be unusually lower than the normal standard. Therefore, lacking these relevant information, it is not possible (impossible) to assess whether this is the case as claimed.

Secondly, in the line of reasoning, the author contributes reduction of accident rate to the implementation of new rules, basing(based) on the facts cited. However, there exist(is) possibility that the decrease of accident rate is merely a response to better traffic conditions. Perhaps, for example, less traffic on the road. Since the author has failed to account for this possibility, the claim is unwarranted.

Finally, the author include a survey of other trucking companies finding that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident. The editorial neglects to indicate how recently the survey was actually conducted and how similar the companies is(are) to Longhaul trucking company. Unless these questions are answered, the survey results are worthless as basis for the claim.

All in all, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions. To strengthen the argument the author would have to demonstrate that how many changes have been made, prove the causal effect and specific information of the companies surveyed. Only by doing so can it be called an optimal claim and most importantly, stand the test of time（beautiful~~~）.

结构清晰，语言规范，逻辑合理，论证较有说服力，perfect~

使用道具举报