第一篇...argument20，感觉用了好多模板上的句子，会被判雷同么？

cccuiUID: 2704122

The author recommends the council of Balmer Island enforce limits on the island’s six moped and bicycle companies’ mopeds rentals, which restrict the number from 50 a day down to 30 a day, in order to reduce the accident of mopeds and pedestrians. To justify this recommendation, the author cites the fact that Torseau's town council achieved a 50 percent reduction in moped accidents last year after enacting such a limit.
Close examination of this argument, however, reveals the author’s claim is little credible.
In the first place, the author assumes that all other conditions in Balmer that might affect the rate of moped-pedestrian accidents will remain constant after putting the re strictions into force. However, since the restriction would somewhat interfere the local people’s going out, purchasing a moped may be the major choice. Moreover, the number of the pedestrians there will increase subsequently, which is also an adverse factor to the traffic safety.
Without considering and ruling out these and other possible changes that might contribute to a high incidence of moped-pedestrian accidents, the author cannot convince me that the proposed restrictions will inevitably have the desired effect.
Secondly, the author’s solution to the problem rests on the claim that a large amount of moped rentals are the main cause of such accidents. The author tells us at the very beginning that the population of Balmer Island increases to 100,000 during the summer months. This fact is very likely to be the main contribution to these accidents, hence controlling the growth of the population is the intrinsic point. Only limiting the amount of moped rental is just like addressing the symptoms, not the cause.
Additionally, granted that the author can substantiate both of the foregoing assumptions, it is obvious that this argument is based on an unwarranted comparison and is wholly unpersuasive by this analogy.
It is highly doubtful that the achievement of Torseau's town council’s methods is applicable to Balmer Island’s situation. Differences on many aspects such as the density of population, the traffic condition and the people’s consciousness of observing traffic regulations
render the analogy wholly groundless. Without accounting for these and other dissimilarities, the author cannot convince me that the proposal is helpful to Balmer Island’s current situation.
Finally, the author provides no evidence that the same restrictions which served to reduce the incidence of all "moped accidents" by 50% would also serve to reduce the incidence of accidents involving "mopeds and pedestrians" by 50%.
Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the number of moped accidents not involving pedestrians decreased by a greater percentage, while the number of moped-pedestrian accidents keeps still, or even increased. Since the author has not accounted for these possibilities, the editorial's recommendation cannot be taken seriously.

In sum, the author cannot justify his recommendation on the basis of the scant evidence provided in the editorial. The argument can be improved by providing evidence that the other factors involved in the moped-pedestrian accidents will remain unchangeable, and that moped rental is the main cause of these accidents. In addition, the author should confirm that the two regions are so greatly similar that can make an analogy from each other.