给我一个被拍的机会吧....额滴神啊

shenlan281UID: 2452395

就剩一个月就考试了，才第三篇阿狗，无奈+悲愤+惭愧。。。。高手们指点指点吧


"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."


Simply based on the groundless assumption and dubious evidence, the author draws a conclusion that only through reducing speed limit, the citizens of Forestvile could decrease the rate of automobile accident. To justify his conclusion, the author points out the evidence that the number of traffic accidents has increased in six months. In addition, he indicates that increasing the speed limit causes these accidents. Besides, the arguer makes an inappropriate comparison between Forestvile and Elmsford. At first glance, the argument seems to be some convincing, but further reflection reveals it omits some substantial concern that should be addressed to substantiate the argument. Therefore, in my perspective the argument suffers from three logical flaws.
       To begin with, the author evaluates the condition of Forestvile in six months, Generally speaking, which is too hasty to get the comprehensive conclusion in this relatively short time. Besides, it is hardly to say the amount of traffic accidents has dramatically increased in this region during this period, since the statistics in statement merely shows that the number of accidents has increased 15% and the author fails to provide information regarding the absolute number of accidents.
       Further, granted that the condition of traffic in Forestvile is bad, the arguer still hardly establishes the causal relationship between the fact that the bad condition of traffic and the claim that the increasing speed limited. This argument is unacceptable unless there is compelling evidence to support the connection between these two events. Perhaps, for instance, the bad situation result from the number of autos becomes larger and larger, or the poor road condition.
       The last, even though increasing speed limited causes the bad situation of traffic in Forestvile, and it is still inadvisable to copy the steps which taken by Elemsford. Because the arguer’s recommendation just relies on what might be a poor analogy between Forestvile and Elemsford, it is entirely possible that there are kinds of differences between them, such as the condition of road, traffic volume. In short, without accounting for important possible differences, the arguer cannot reasonably prove the proposed method will help Forestivle.
       To sum up, the assertion of author is unwarranted, since the evidence does not lend strong support to what he maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information with regard to the condition of traffic in Forestvile. Besides, he would have to demonstrate that the all aspects of situation in both F and E are highly similar. If the argument had included the factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

shenlan281UID: 2452395

我擦。。。字体、排版我都搞不定