[i习作temp] argument20 第一篇,大家帮忙看看吧 [复制链接]

bravesailer
UID: 2177471

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 234
注册时间: 2006-1-18
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-1-20 12:47:14 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

outline:
1.accidents may be not caused by mopeds, but the pedestrians.
2.the 50 percent reduction is not logically obvious.
3.the neighboring island last year’s success can not be necessarily achieved by Balmer Island.

This article concludes that to reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians,
moped and bicycle rental companies should reduce the number of rented mopeds. They made this conclusion from the neighboring island’s success in the similar issue. But this argument is logically unconvincing in several respects.

First of all, the accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians are not necessarily due to the moped riders. It is entirely possible that the pedestrians’ not obeying traffic rules cause those accidents, but as a misplay the council of Balmer Island blames the moped riders for those accidents. Since this misplay, reducing the number of mopeds can not efficiently cut down the accidents number. Even if on the assumption that most accidents caused by the moped riders, it does not necessarily means the riders who rent mopeds should be blamed for those accidents. Maybe just those who own mopeds account for most accidents, as they have the higher possibility to ride old and unsafe mopeds than those who rent mopeds do. As concerning to that they are with responsibility for the rider’s safety, the rental companies may examine and repair their mopeds every time before their customers use them. But the individuals may not always examine their mopeds before they ride them. If the accidents are not caused by those rental companies’ mopeds, how can reducing the rental mopeds’ number does a favor to the reduction of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians.

Secondly, on the assumption the rental companies’ mopeds are involved in most accidents, the author falsely conclude that the Balmer Island will attain the 50 percent reduction in moped accidents by limit the number of mopeds rented from 50 per day to 30 per day. This is an obviously logically mistake. There are more elements can cause the moped accidents, such as the pedestrian number, the other traffic number, the weather etc. The author just makes above conclusion from the limited number of renter mopeds. Also, the exact especially lack persuasion. There is no exact data relation between the number of accidents and limited mopeds rented.

Finally, the author cited the neighboring island’s success on reducing moped accidents as a reason to persuade the council to limit the rental number per day of the companies. But the reason lacks persuasion, because the neighboring island may have such a different traffic system that makes its success. This system is what Balmer Island can not copy, so the neighboring island does not necessarily means the Balmer Island can succeed the same way.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must modify this letter and provide some evidence that most accidents were caused by the rental mopeds and there are indeed lots of analogies between Balmer Island and the neighboring island.

[ 本帖最后由 bravesailer 于 2006-1-20 13:56 编辑 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

bravesailer
UID: 2177471

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 234
注册时间: 2006-1-18
精华: 0
帖子: 1

沙发

发表于 2006-1-20 13:58:19 |只看该作者

我自己先拍吧.
最大的问题是词汇贫乏,基本上都是四级词汇.
结构上的问题,我自己看不大出来,希望大家帮忙看看啊
先谢了..

使用道具举报

Fedex
UID: 2112090

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 528
注册时间: 2005-6-28
精华: 0
帖子: 1

板凳

发表于 2006-1-20 17:30:32 |只看该作者

outline:
1.accidents may be not caused by mopeds, but the pedestrians.
2.the 50 percent reduction is not logically obvious.
3.the neighboring island last year’s success can not be necessarily achieved by Balmer Island.
补充：我觉得还有一点可以反驳,题目中提到“from 50 per day to 30 per day during the summer season”。也即限制政策仅限于夏季，而后面提到的是降低整年的事故发生率。我觉得这也可以反驳一下。

This article concludes that to reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, moped and bicycle rental companies should reduce the number of rented mopeds. They made this conclusion from the neighboring island’s success in the similar issue. But this argument is logically unconvincing in several respects.

First of all, the accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians are not necessarily due to the moped riders. It is entirely possible that the pedestrians’ not obeying traffic rules cause those accidents, but as a misplay the council of Balmer Island blames the moped riders for those accidents. Since this misplay, reducing the number of mopeds can not efficiently cut down the accidents number. Even if on the assumption that most accidents caused by the moped riders, it does not necessarily means the riders who rent mopeds should be blamed for those accidents. Maybe just those who own mopeds account for most accidents, as they have the higher possibility to ride old and unsafe mopeds than those who rent mopeds do. As concerning to that they are with responsibility for the rider’s safety, the rental companies may examine and repair their mopeds every time before their customers use them. But the individuals may not always examine their mopeds before they ride them. If the accidents are not caused by those rental companies’ mopeds, how can reducing the rental mopeds’ number does a favor to the reduction of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians.（分析很好，透彻）

Secondly, on the assumption the rental companies’ mopeds are involved in most accidents, the author falsely conclude that the Balmer Island will attain the 50 percent reduction in moped accidents by limit the number of mopeds rented from 50 per day to 30 per day. This is an obviously logically mistake. There are more elements can cause the moped accidents, such as the pedestrian number, the other traffic number, the weather etc. The author just makes above conclusion from the limited number of renter mopeds. Also, the exact especially lack persuasion. （可否修改下这句）There is no exact data relation between the number of accidents and limited mopeds rented.

Finally, the author cited the neighboring island’s success on reducing moped accidents as a reason to persuade the council to limit the rental number per day of the companies. But the reason lacks persuasion, because the neighboring island may have such a different traffic system that makes its success. This system is what Balmer Island can not copy, so the neighboring island does not necessarily means the Balmer Island can succeed the same way.
（本段和上一段如果调换下的话，先指出即使承认租来的车与事故有关，那么邻居经验也未必适用。因为有很多因素会影响交通事故率，所以邻居的事故率降低未必是实行限制政策结果。
然后再起一段进一步让步，就算邻居确实是因为施行这政策而降低事故率，其经验也未必适用于本岛。）In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must modify this letter and provide some evidence that most accidents were caused by the rental mopeds and there are indeed lots of analogies between Balmer Island and the neighboring island.

使用道具举报

lorraineye
UID: 2157370

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 1
寄托币: 1736
注册时间: 2005-11-13
精华: 1
帖子: 2

地板

发表于 2006-1-21 01:01:47 |只看该作者

This article concludes that to reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians,
moped and bicycle rental companies should reduce the number of rented mopeds. They made this conclusion from the neighboring island’s success in the similar issue.But this argument is logically unconvincing in several respects.

First of all, the accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians are not necessarily due to the moped riders. It is entirely possible that the pedestrians’ not obeying(disobeying) traffic rules cause those accidents, but as a misplay the council of Balmer Island blames the moped riders for those accidents. Since this misplay, (这个因为所以逻辑上不通吧)reducing the number of mopeds can not efficiently cut down the accidents number(直接说reduce the accidents 怎样). Even if on the assumption that most accidents caused by the moped riders(建议用Granted that...), it does not necessarily means the riders who rent mopeds should be blamed for those accidents. Maybe just those who own mopeds account for most accidents, as they have the higher possibility to ride old and unsafe mopeds than those who rent mopeds do.As concerning to that they are with responsibility(responsible for...) for the rider’s safety, the rental companies may examine and repair their mopeds every time before their customers use them. But the individuals may not always examine their mopeds before they ride them. If the accidents are not caused by those rental companies’ mopeds, how can reducing the rental mopeds’ number does a favor to the reduction of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians.

Secondly, on the assumption (that)the rental companies’ mopeds are involved in most accidents, the author falsely conclude that the Balmer Island will attain the 50 percent reduction in moped accidents by limit(ing) the number of mopeds rented from 50 per day to 30 per day. This is an obviously logically mistake(如果把这句笼统的话改成the arguer ignores the other possibilities that would infruence the number of accidents.是不是好些,可以和下句话合并在一起). There are more elements can cause the moped accidents, such as the pedestrian number, the other traffic number(the number of other vehicles), the weather etc. The author just makes above conclusion from the limited number of renter mopeds. (这句不通,而且可以删掉了,前面意思已经表达到位)Also, the exact especially lack persuasion(这句不通.the exact number of 50% is unfounded). There is no exact data (proves there would be an causal)relation between the number of accidents and limited mopeds rented(limiting rented mopeds).

Finally, the author cited the neighboring island’s success on reducing moped accidents as a reason to persuade the council to limit the rental number per day of the companies. But the reason lacks persuasion, because the neighboring island may have such a different traffic system that makes its success. This system is what Balmer Island can not copy, so the (success of )neighboring island does not necessarily means the Balmer Island can succeed (in)the same way.这段论证得有点含糊和匆忙,可以再补充一些其他不同的因素

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands(直接说and unconvincing更简洁有力). To strengthen it the author must modify this letter这个有点多余 and provide some evidence that most accidents were caused by the rental mopeds and there are indeed lots of analogies between Balmer Island and the neighboring island.

我个人认为关于导致事故的其他原因是可以和与邻岛的错误类比放在一起说的,T岛是因为摩托车导致事故而B岛不是; T岛是因为出租摩托导致而B是个人车导致,50%也是的,T岛达到50%怎么能说B也是呢?我觉得这样更加紧凑一点.

另外,关于仅仅在夏天限制的这个理由应该补充进去.

[ 本帖最后由 lorraineye 于 2006-1-21 13:14 编辑 ]

使用道具举报