Argument18 【第一篇限时阿狗（已自改）】

紫陌纤尘o0UID: 2745492

【已参考楼下两位热心童鞋的意见进行再次修改，灰常感谢坐沙发的斑竹&蹲板凳的童鞋O(∩_∩)O~】

TOPIC: ARGUMENT18 - The following appeared in an editorial in a Prunty County newspaper.

"In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from 55 miles per hour to 45 on all major county roads. But the 55 mph limit should be restored, because this safety effort has failed. Most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly. If we want to improve the safety of our roads, we should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than there were five years ago."
WORDS: 281
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-1-27 23:49:26

Grounding on the Butler’s succeed experience, facing with the same problems with which brother Butler Country five years ago, the speaker claims that Prunty Country should imitate the methods which was brought into effect in Butler County 5 years ago to improve the safety of their major roads. To support this claim, the speaker makes some comparisons and cites some statistics, while neglect some different factors and maybe this is where the rub is.


The speaker’s assertion is based on the assumption that all the conditions in both Prunty and Butler are the same. However, both the physical and anthropogenic factors should not be oversight when comparing two places. The landform, for instance, is the previous factor should be considered when it comes to roads. Perhaps Prunty is about to mountains and the roads should be built around the mountainside, to our general knowledge, this situation would naturally have hidden danger and difficult to increase lane widths. On the other hand, Butler Country maybe on the plain, and their roads could be much more safety and wider than Prunty. And also the number of cars is correlated to the accident rate, as the car increase the possibility of accident would raise too. Furthermore, the economic factor is also should be taken into account, no matter resurfacing rough roads or widening lanes would be a significant cost. Granted that the methods are feasible, in the consideration of profits and costs, it maybe not the best choice.


Supposing that the same measures are applied in Prunty as well, whereas the valid statistics of Butler does not mean that Prunty would attain the similar succeed. Perhaps the accident rate of Butler is initially in a low level, 25% decrease is easy to achieve, but the accident rate of Prunty is much more than Butler’s general level, thus few decrease is likely to be thought of inefficacy.


Finally, it has claimed that the change of the limit speed has failed for the reason that most drivers in Prunty exceed the 45 mph limit and the accident rate just slightly decreased. And combining with the current speed limit in Butler is still 55mph; the speaker accordingly believes that 55mph is an appropriate limit speed. However, the new limit should take some time for the drivers to adapt; perhaps the accident rate would fall considerably after a period of time when the majority of drivers could subject to the 45mph limit.

In conclusion, the specialists should analysis all the conditions in both Butler and Prunty, then decide whether to take the same action as Butler did, and investigate an larger sample to come out a better limit speed in order to decrease the accident rate.

firhadayUID: 2287086

从驳论点来看，B1没问题，B2似乎有点问题
具体是这样：
原文中，列举B的事故率，5年内报告的下降了25%,在原文中，这个是作为一个例子来支持作者的观点，即B自从使用了XXX后，事故率下降了，从而取得了不错的效果，推荐P也要使用。
这个应该是原文章的逻辑链
那么你觉得这个逻辑链应该怎么来反驳呢？你可以用中文来说~呵呵~

细改的事情就让粉口耐汗粉勤劳滴的家家同志来了~

再BTW下，B3有点短啊~而且么说清楚

rodgoodUID: 2619326

原来已经在家家斑竹修改铺占了位……没看见。不过既然已经拜读了文章，还是发表下拙见吧，班门弄斧下下，也顺便请斑竹看看我的看法对不哈。继续关注家家斑竹的修改。


Grounding on the Butler’s succeed experience, facing with the same problems with which brother Butler Country five years ago, the speaker claims that Prunty County should imitate the methods which was brought into effect in Butler County 5 years ago to improve the safety of their major roads. To support this claim, the speaker makes some comparisons and cites some statistics, while neglect some important factors which maybe is where the rub is.


First, the speaker’s assertion is based on the assumption that all the conditions in both Prunty and Butler are the same. However, both the physical and anthropogenic factors should not be oversight when comparing two places. The landform, for instance, is the previous factor should be considered when it comes to roads. Perhaps Prunty is about to mountains and the roads should be built around the mountainside,（；） to our general knowledge, this situation would naturally exist hidden danger and difficult to increase lane widths. On the other hand, Butler Country maybe on the plain, and their roads could be much more safety and wider than Prunty. And also the number of cars is correlated to the accident rate, as the car increase the possibility of accidents would raise too. Furthermore, the economic factor is also should be taken into account, no matter resurfacing rough roads or widening lanes would be a significant cost. Granted that the methods are feasible, in the consideration of profits and costs, it maybe not the best choice.本段说了很多两个地区的不同点，学习之。但个人觉得段尾应该呼应下TS，说，因为这些可能的不同点，所以assertion是不可靠的。

Secondly, the speaker confirms that Butler’s roads are much safer than Prunty’s. However, the precise statistics about Butler’s accident rate is not provided, merely  25% fewer during this past year than five years ago could not indicate that Butler’s safety of roads is still better than Prunty’s. What’s more, One year’s statistics is lack of cogency, perhaps during the past year the accident rate in Butler is higher than Prunty. Moreover, they cannot ensure that all the existed accidents were reported. Perhaps some slightly damaged accidents were always solved in private ways.
个人认为本段的TS有问题。如果只看第一句，只复述了题目意思，不像TS。如果加上第二句，又太长，且已经开始了论述。所以在第一句上就应该把could not indicate…放上去。或者在段末也行。
Finally, the speaker believes that 55mph is an appropriate limit speed. Most drivers in Prunty exceed the 45 mph limit does not mean that this new limit is fail, oppositely, this maybe the main reason that lead to accidents.说实话，没有看懂本段意思。可能是时间不够了吧，没有论述充分。

In conclusion, the specialists should analysis all the conditions in both Butler and Prunty, then decide whether to take the same action as Butler did, and investigate an larger sample to come out a better limit speed in order to decrease the accident rate.

LZ语言功底不错哈，但是在论述的时候还应该层次分明一点，意思稍微再清楚点，不要让阅卷老师去猜哈~~加油，呵呵。

这里是我的习作，欢迎来拍，谢谢~~

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1058252-1-5.html

紫陌纤尘o0UID: 2745492

2# firhaday
自己看了以后也发现B2是在批判论据，而非从论据和结论的连接处入手，谢谢斑竹热心指教，偶已经在原文修改，不知道这次改的如何呢？B3是因为限时时间快到了，匆匆收尾，自改时没感觉了都，就草草结束，以后会认真的啦，也做了补充修改，欢迎再次指正！
PS. 斑斑的头像灰常漂亮地说~

紫陌纤尘o0UID: 2745492

3# rodgood
灰常感谢热心的童鞋，偶会去拜读童鞋大作的，已经在原文修改，欢迎指正！

firhadayUID: 2287086

Supposing that the same measures are applied in Prunty as well, whereas the valid statistics of Butler does not mean that Prunty would attain the similar succeed. Perhaps the accident rate of Butler is initially in a low level, 25% decrease is easy to achieve, but the accident rate of Prunty is much more than Butler’s general level, thus few decrease is likely to be thought of inefficacy.

这个段落要质疑的点是B的成功在P不能复制，那么就从不能复制这个角度来看问题，问问自己为什么不能复制呢？哦，可能是这个的驾驶员酒后驾车严重，可能是这里的路况不好~
但是如果这样写，岂不是又和B1有点重复了呢？

OK,现在换一个思路，如果我们反驳B的25%的数据的问题，那么我们岂不是又更多的可以写了呢？我们不是反驳事实，而是认定B是下降了25%（既定事实），但是这个25%说明了真实的情况了么？
我们来分析下，B是下降了25%，但是是什么原因下降的呢？25%这个数据本身是不是有问题，比如有些事故没有报上来？呵呵

呵呵~给一个思路而已~

firhadayUID: 2287086

推荐给你一个网友的思路，给个参考，呵呵~

firhadayUID: 2287086

7# firhaday

"In an attemptto improve highway safety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from55 miles per hour to 45 on all major county roads. But the 55 mph limit shouldbe restored, because this safety effort has failed. Most drivers are exceedingthe new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County hasdecreased only slightly. If we want to improve the safety of our roads, weshould instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that ButlerCounty completed five years ago: increasing lane widths and resurfacing roughroads. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yetthere were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past yearthan there were five years ago."

为提高高速公路的安全性，Prunty County最近把镇上所有主要路段的最高限速从55mph降到了45。但我们应该回复到55mph的限速，因为这种保障安全的努力已经失败了。多数司机都超过了新的限速，而且Prunty County全镇的事故率仅有微量下降。如果我们要提高公路安全性，我们应该采取Butler County在5年前完成的同样的道路改计划：增加车道宽度和重新铺装不平整路面。现在，Butler County的主要道路仍然使用55mph限速，而那里近年间上报的事故发生率比五年前减少了25％。

1.
作者未证明我们的限速没有达到效果。
(1)
司机超速并不代表我们的限速不合理。反之，说明这些司机没有遵守规定。我们该做的事加强管理，进行培训，而不是改规定。
(2)
PruntyCounty全镇的事故率仅有少量下降并不代表限速不合理。因为限速只是在主要道路上进行限制，很可能大多数事故是发生在没有限速的小型公路上。如果是这样的话，事故率仍有下降，说明限速措施还是合理的。
(3)
我们的限速是最近刚实行的，所以也许时间太短，到底有没有效果还没有给足够的时间看出来。
(4)
事故的发生也许和速度无关，而是由于最近天气情况不好，太多新手司机，或公安交通管理松懈等等。
2.
作者未能证明BC的措施是可行的。
(1)
上报的事故率低了，并不代表事故率真的低了。第一，有可能是发生了很多事故率，只是没有上报而已。第二，有可能是BC这个地方开车的人少了，因此事故率少了。
(2)
就算他们的事故率真的低了，也可能不是由于车道宽度和铺路造成的。也许是由于当地司机素质比较高，没改革前人家事故率也本来就比较低。
3.
就算BC的措施对他真的可行，但是不一定对PC也可行。作者犯了false analogy的错误。
(1)
两镇地形不同
(2)
天气不同
(3)
司机素质不同
(4)
交通管理方面的严度不同

以上内容来自于寄托网友作品，如需转载或引用，请注明出处，谢谢配合

家家☆yoonjaeUID: 2646910

TOPIC: ARGUMENT18 - The following appeared in an editorial in a Prunty County newspaper.

"In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from 55 miles per hour to 45 on all major county roads. But the 55 mph limit should be restored, because this safety effort has failed. Most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly. If we want to improve the safety of our roads, we should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than there were five years ago."

Grounding on the Butler’s succeed experience, facing with the same problems with which brother Butler Country five years ago, the speaker claims that Prunty Country should imitate the methods which was brought into effect in Butler County 5 years ago to improve the safety of their major roads. （用一句长句子说明清楚情况的思路是很好的，可是长句子一定要注意避免重复以及不能影响对句子意思理解上的通顺性。） To support this claim, the speaker makes some comparisons and cites some statistics, （这里表述得就不是很高明了，some是一个很模棱两可的词，文中究竟进行了几方面的比较和几个例子的引证，事实上很容易数清楚的，用准确的数字来表述会为你在rater那里加不少印象分，同时也表明了你对作者的逻辑链整理水平上升到了一个新的层次。）while neglect some different factors and maybe this is where the rub is.【开头开门见山陈述了问题，但是整理逻辑链的时候还是有所欠缺，个人建议是开头还是分3句来说，表明作者立场，理清逻辑链，引出下文。】

Fundamentally, (对于论证部分每段段首的逻辑词，还是应该不要省略，这是论证层次的一个信号灯) the speaker’s assertion is based on the assumption that all the conditions in both Prunty and Butler are the same.（逻辑错误没有明确点出来，作者的结论是基于这个假设，那么这个假设到底是错误的？还是可行的哪？虽然你这么表述并不影响这一段的意思，但是作为TS来说，一定要直接指出错误所在，才是最有效的。）However, both the physical and anthropogenic factors should not be oversight when comparing two places. The landform, for instance, is the previous factor should be considered when it comes to roads. Perhaps Prunty is about to mountains and the roads should be built around the mountainside, to our general knowledge, this situation would naturally have hidden danger and difficult to increase lane widths. On the other hand, Butler Country maybe on the plain, and their roads could be much more safety and wider than Prunty. （这里差了半句，landform对道路改建有很大的影响，这部分已经通过你前面的这两句交代清楚了，小结一下，交代这个结论对作者的推理会产生什么样的影响。）And also the number of cars is correlated to the accident rate, as the car increase the possibility of accident would raise too. （还是加半句，比如说，however, the author even didn’t say anything about such issue，这样你的论述就跟作者的推理联系起来了，一定要时刻记着你的论证是在原文的基础上展开的，脱离了原文，你的argument就失去意义了，因为不是要你针对原文中提到的问题阐述自己的观点，而是评价原作者的论述。） Furthermore, the economic factor is also should be taken into account, no matter resurfacing rough roads or widening lanes would be a significant cost. Granted that the methods are feasible, in the consideration of profits and costs, it maybe not the best choice.（段末加上一句总结会更好）【段落间的论证思路是清晰的，合理推断的数量也足够了，不过最好能够注意一下段与段之间的平衡，由目前的状况来看是有些许头重脚轻的，每一段论证都要力求做到说清楚、理明白，尽量不要差异过大，如果有某一个逻辑错误是觉得最没有办法展开的，可以考虑放在稍稍靠后的位置。】


Furthermore,（还是逻辑词）supposing that the same measures are applied in Prunty as well, whereas the valid statistics of Butler does not mean that Prunty would attain the similar succeed. （由这个TS来看跟上一段论证的内容overlap了，上面说的是conditions完全一致的假设，既然conditions完全一致了，为什么到这里又会出现“即使是相同的手段，得到的结果也不一定完全一样”？事实上这一段的内容直接归在上一段的后部就可以了，比如说，即使B与P都使用同样的measure，也会因为两地的具体情况差异而造成结果不同。）Perhaps the accident rate of Butler is initially in a low level, 25% decrease is easy to achieve, but the accident rate of Prunty is much more than Butler’s general level, thus few decrease is likely to be thought of inefficacy.


Finally, it has claimed that the change of the limit speed has failed for the reason that most drivers in Prunty exceed the 45 mph limit and the accident rate just slightly decreased. （TS的信息浓度不够高，有很多内容是可以在后面论述的时候展开的，TS一定要trenchant，一定要直指问题核心，别的都可以砍掉，瘦身一下）And（TS是TS，后面论证是论证，用and来衔接这两部分是不合适的）combining with the current speed limit in Butler is still 55mph,（这里用逗号就可以了，为什么是分号？） the speaker accordingly believes that 55mph is an appropriate limit speed. However, the new limit should take some time for the drivers to adapt; perhaps the accident rate would fall considerably after a period of time when the majority of drivers could subject to the 45mph limit. （这里虽然展开了几句，可是似乎还是没有把问题说明清楚，而且都没有点题，我甚至在这段的论证部分都没有看到Butler了，这个是对象吧？脱离研究对象讨论问题？不合适吧）（差总结句）

In conclusion, the specialists should analysis all the conditions in both Butler and Prunty, then decide whether to take the same action as Butler did, and investigate an larger sample to come out a better limit speed in order to decrease the accident rate. 【个人习惯，结尾不改】

可能是因为第一次限时的关系，楼主写到后面有些着急了，一定要把问题一桩桩一件件地说清楚，步步为营，不要狗熊掰玉米，会得不偿失的。

红色为有问题的部分，绿色批注为个人建议，蓝色批注为整段评价，橘色词汇为个人添加