Argument55 第一篇作文 求拍

eric_scutUID: 2304889

题目Argument55
The following appeared in a Letter to the Editor of the Shady Village newspaper.
"Commuters are complaining that the rush hour traffic on Blue Highway between Shady Village and Bright City has doubled their commuting time. Some commuters have asked that an additional traffic lane be built, but the recent creation of such a lane on nearby Green Highway apparently attracted more commuters, judging from the fact that rush-hour traffic jams actually increased there this past winter. To reduce rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway, a bicycle lane should be added instead of a traffic lane. This approach will succeed because many citizens of Shady Village are avid bicyclists; 75 percent of respondents to a recent questionnaire distributed there said they would like to bicycle more hours per week than they currently do."

说明
学习完《GRE 作文大讲堂》第五章第五节的10篇范文后，提取模板、句型写作而成
字数 587
无限时

作文
The writer concludes that in order to decrease the rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway, a bicycle lane rather than a traffic lane should be added there. To support her/his opinion, the writer takes the situation of nearby Green Highway as an example and argues that an additional traffic lane would attract more commuters. She/he also cites a survey showing that people in that district like riding bicycles. However, careful examination reveals the weakness of the writer's reasoning.

First of all, the writer asserts that an additional traffic lane would result in attracting more commuters, merely based on the fact that the rush-hour traffic jams increased on nearby Green Highway on which a new lane was created. Yet, it is entirely possible that one or more other factors were instead responsible for the increased traffic jams, especially since the statistic data came from the season of winter. Perhaps the increase was attributable to the unreasonable design or the rough surface of the new lane. Or, perhaps the snowing and cold weather in winter increased the probability of occurring traffic jams. Either scenario would provide an alternative, rational explanation. Without accounting for these and other possibilities, the writer cannot justify the conclusion that more commuters will appear due to the additional traffic lane.

Moreover, even if the additional traffic lane indeed caused more commuters in Green Highway, the writer fails to consider possible differences between Green Highway and Blue Highway which might help to bring different result for the later one. For instance, the condition of the surface or the shape of the road may different. Without ruling out the dissimilarities between these two highways, the writer cannot assume that what resulted in more commuters in Green Highway would bring about the same result in Blue Highway.

Another fallacy lies in the survey the writer cited to justify her/his idea of creating a bicycle lane. The questionnaire contacted only those people reside in Shady Village. What about the people live in Bright City, another endpoint of the highway? Are they also like riding a bicycle? The biased sample of the survey weakens the argument. Additionally, the exact number of the informant of the investigation is never mentioned in the letter. If only ten persons are involved in the investigation, the result will be unconvincing. A study with unrepresentative samples, as well as unknown number of participator, is very weak evidence to reach any convincing conclusion.

Finally, the result of the study showing that the avid bicyclists would like to bicycle more lends little support to the writer's suggestion. Being a bicycle enthusiast does not mean that one have to or would like to bicycle to work. It is highly possible that they just take it as a way of exercise so as to keep fit and would like to bicycle on weekend, rather than ride on a bike wearing a business suit on work day. In a word, the writer cannot simply jump to the conclusion that the commuters will choose to ride on the bicycle lane without given any further concrete evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the writer's suggestion, she/he must provide clearer evidence showing that the additional traffic lane in Blue Highway will surely attract more commuters. Furthermore, the writer should conduct a comprehensive survey covering a sufficient sample that is representative of the population under consideration, and prove that a large amount of people would like to bicycle to work once a new bicycle lane were created there.

提纲
第1段. 【原文结论】为了解决交通拥挤，应该建自行车道，而不是交通道。【原文理由】G路吸引了更多的车流量；调查显示人们喜欢骑自行车。【反驳，提起下文】。
第2段. 从G路的交通拥挤的增加，并不能推导出G路吸引了更多的车流量。可能有其他原因，如路面状况，路道拐角等。而且事故增加是在冬天，可能天气影响。【考虑问题不全面】
第3段. 即使G路交通拥挤加剧是由于更多的车流量，同样的情况也不一定会发生在B路。【错误类比】
第4段. 调查样本不具代表性；样本数量没有说明。【调查类错误】
第5段. 调查的结果说很多人想增加骑车次数，但这并不意味着他们想骑自行车去上下班。【无因果关系】
第6段. 结论。指出应该如何完善论证。

eric_scutUID: 2304889

3# amandafengzhuan

的确正文4段我自己也觉得太多了，准备删减下.

谢谢你的意见

eric_scutUID: 2304889

2# yoyolee0721

1. would like to仅仅是一个愿望，不一定会实行。 确实，开拓了我的思路，谢谢。 个人觉得这个放在第5段比较吻合。

2. 可能出在green highway本身或是时间上都有可能。 这个就是我第2段的内容啊 :)

谢谢你的评论 :handshake

amandafengzhuanUID: 2656137

我也不是很懂，但是我觉得复述原文不必那么多，第3段可以少一些或者不要，因为其实不需要太多理由，只需要2-3个论证有理的理由就好。
何况真正考试，Argument部分一定来不及写这么多，贪多可能导致比较重要的原因来不及写好。

yoyolee0721UID: 2658839

我觉得还有一个错误比较小，但相对样本的代表性来说这个问题更大一点，可以和样本那个章节合并或是与增加次数5段合并，哪个更好，你觉得呢？
就是75％的调查者表示他们想would like to bicycle more hours per week than they currently do，可能这仅仅只是一个美好的愿望。我们每个人都有这样的经验，就是加强锻炼还制定了计划，但最后往往没有实现。逻辑就是他们可能压根就不会多bicycle，然后即使多bicycle也不一定会去highway上的bicycle lane 去bicycle。
还有2中，原因可能出在green highway本身或是时间上都有可能。green 本身可能设计不合理导致堵车，然后还有你说的可能季节问题。
这是我首次评论，谢谢！哈哈