[a习作temp] 试了试Scoreitnow [复制链接]

achillesheel
UID：2113233

荣誉版主

Rank: 9 Rank: 9 Rank: 9

声望: 156
寄托币: 7010
注册时间: 2005-7-3
精华: 0
帖子: 27

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-3-24 15:41:56 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.

In this argument, the arguer recommends that citizens of Forestville (F) should campaign to reduce F’s speed limit to the former level. This recommendation seems cogent on the surface; however, a careful examination reveals several critical fallacies.

Firstly, the arguer unreasonably assumes that there is a causal relationship between the increase of speed limit and more automobile accidents, based on that fact that the latter occurred after the former. However, the sequence of these events, in itself, does not suffice to prove that the former caused the latter one. The increase of automobile accidents might result from some other events, such as fewer penalties for speeding, a significant boost of vehicles in F. The arguer must consider and eliminate these possible reasons. Otherwise, I cannot accept the arguer’s assertion that the increase of speed limit led to the more automobile accidents.

Secondly, the arguer commits a false analogy between F and Elmsford (E). Perhaps there are much fewer vehicles in E than F. Or perhaps people in E better abide by traffic rules. Both these and other alternatives may account for the decrease of automobile accidents in E. In short, without describing the transportation situations in F and E, this argument by analogy is untenable.

Finally, even if the transportation situations in F and E are comparable, the arguer concludes too hastily that citizens in F should campaign to reduce the speed limit to the former level. First, there are many other options to reduce automobile accidents, such as more severe penalty for speeding, introducing first class public traffic system, etc. Second, even though decrease the speed limit is the only option, there are better procedures to accomplish the task, such as negotiating with government, rather than campaign. Therefore, only with thorough analysis and consideration could the arguer draw any firm conclusion.

In sum, the argument is well reasoned. Only with more detailed information about the reason that led to the increase of automobile accidents and the transportation situations in F and E, could we have a clear picture of the best option.

[ 本帖最后由 achillesheel 于 2007-3-24 15:45 编辑 ]

回应
0

[a习作temp] 试了试Scoreitnow [复制链接]

Libra天秤座

荣誉版主