【Big Fish】03月18日Argument79--By Bruce

cloudwind-greUID: 2462220

Argument还是按新公布的

79:The following appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry.
"The Longhaul trucking company was concerned that its annual accident rate (the number of accidents per mile driven) was too high. It granted a significant pay increase to its drivers and increased its training standards. It also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive. The following year, its trucks were involved in half the number of accidents as before the changes were implemented. A survey of other trucking companies found that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident. Therefore, trucking companies wishing to reduce their accident rate can do so simply by raising their drivers' pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive."


In this argument, the arguer makes a point that trucking companies hoping to reduce their accident rate can simply limit the overall number of hours the drivers drive and raise their pay. A comparison about the accident rate in sequential two years and a survey about the effect of pay of the drivers are cited by the arguer to convince us. However, both of his proof are unsound as discussed below:

First, the comparison of the accident rate before the trucking company's implement of their methods with that after the implement masks other possible alternatives that could also lead to the same result. Many conditions involving the weather of that two years, the destinations of the drivers, and the cargos they transport should all taken in to account. If the weather last years are more terrible than that this years, if the drivers always went to those mountainous area last years but only run in the plane this year, if the freight they carried last year were those that were firm enough for the driver to drive faster, the accident rate this year is likely to reduce. Therefore, we can believe that it may not the new implement that result in the decrease of the accident rate, but rather other fasters hidden by the arguers that account for the decline.

Not taking the other conditions into consideration, we still have to doubt the conclusion of the arguer because he provides no direct evidence to substantiate whether the limit of hours the driver drive can reduce the accident rate or not. As has been discussed above, the comparison can not serve as its proof. Furthermore, limiting the hours of the drive can also cause the drive to drive faster to accomplish the same workload, thereby increasing their risk of encountering in traffic accident. Hence, the arguers should suffer more data about the effect of limitation of drivers' running hours.

As for the arguer's second reason, the survey in other trucking company about the method of raising the drivers' pay. Since the survey was carried in other company, which maybe completely different with the Longhaul trucking company, whether the same effect can be obtained in Longhaul trucking company has to be pondered carefully.
The fact that highest-paid drivers make less accident seems to rationalize that increasing the pay can result in less accident. However, if we consider why the drivers can get highest salary, we can conclude that it maybe their proficient of driving skills that result in their less accident rate and their highest pay. Therefore, it may not the high pay that result in low accident rate, but the low accident rate that lead to high payment.

In sum, since many other alternatives in the comparison the accident in two years and the difference between different truck company are overlooked, the arguer need to provide more details about his argument.