【Big Fish】习作-3.18Argument79-By cootozero

cooltozeroUID: 2705603

TOPIC: ARGUMENT79 - 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."
WORDS: 363          TIME: 00:35:00          DATE: 2010-3-18 15:26:32





这是原作，未加修改。

Although the desire for lowing the accident rate is understandalbe, the recommentdation in this obstensibly well reasoned argument is possibly not effective since ther arguer make a hasty generalnization through a probably wrong assumption by analysing the longhaul trucking company.


In the first place, the situation that  Langhaul's trucks involved in half the number of accidents in the later year does not necessarily means that the accidetn rate is lower. In fact, if Langhaul had less business in this year, which led to less tucks running,  the accidents caused by its trucks will naturally fall down. This may has nothing to do with the pay and limiting hours at all. Before the arguer presents other evidence informing us the accident happened less frequently, we have no primary base to disscuss the way by which the Langhaul improved their trucks' and drivers' safety.


In the second place, even assuming that the accident rate has significant fall down, whether it is atributed to the inreased pay and limited hours is still a question open to doubt. After all, in this argument, the training is also mentioned. Maybe, the traning play a much more crucial role in the process of making less accidents. Moreover, other factors is likely be ignored by the arguer. It is probably that Langhaul also introduced other methods, such as new divices or new instructors and so on, to help its drivers keep safety. Without ruling out these possibilites, it can't convince us that just a higher pay and a less driving hours could make such a significant difference.


Another problem with this argument is that, the survey mentioned in this argument will not support the arguer's conclusion. As well all know, in any company, the drivers with high pay are those hold better virtuoso. It is for this reason that they are the least likely to have had an accident. However, the arguer unreasonale assumes that we can encourage a driver to drive more safely by giving him more money, but not giving him more training. In additon, we have no evidece to guarantee the same rule will bo fit to any other company.


To sum up, the arguer fails to provide enough reasons to justify the conclusion in this argument.To really come out way for reducing the accident rate, more surveys are needed.


接下来自改。

cooltozeroUID: 2705603

Although the desire for lowing（low没有动词的意思，改成lessening/lowering/reducing) the accident rate is understandalbe(understandable老是拼写错误，不可原谅！！）, the recommentdation in this obstensibly well reasoned argument is possibly（可能的有：probably/feasibly/conceivably) not effective since ther arguer makes a hasty generalnization(generalization) through a probably wrong assumption by analysing the longhaul trucking company's experience.


In the first place, the situation that  Langhaul's trucks involved in half the number of accidents in the later year does not necessarily means that the accidetn rate is lower. In fact, if Langhaul had less business in this year, which led to less tucks running,  the accidents caused by its trucks should had naturally fallen down. This may has(had) nothing to do with the pay and limiting(limited) hours at all. Before the arguer presents other evidence informing us the accidents happened less frequently, we have no primary base to disscuss( take over) the way by which the Langhaul improved their trucks' and drivers' safety(security).


In the second place, even assuming that the accident rate has significant fallen down, whether it is attributed to the inreased pay and limited hours is still a question open to doubt. After all, in this argument, the training of Langhaul is also mentioned. Maybe, the training play a much more crucial role in the process of making less accidents. Moreover, other factors is likely be ignored by the arguer. It is probably that Langhaul also introduced other methods, such as installing new divices or introducing new instructors and so on, to help its drivers keep safety(改成from involving in accidents). Without ruling out these possibilites, it can't convince us(因为前面没有提到主语，改成we can't be convinced  ） that just a higher pay and a less（few) driving hours could make such a significant difference.


Another problem with this argument is that, the survey mentioned in this argument will not support the arguer's conclusion. As well all know, in any company, the drivers with high pay are those hold better virtuoso(great skill). It is for this reason that they are the least likely to have had an accident. However, the arguer unreasonale(unreasonalbly) assumes that we can encourage a driver to drive more safely by giving him more money, but not giving him more training. In additon, we have no evidece to guarantee the same rule will bo fit to any other company.


To sum up, the arguer fails to provide enough reasons to justify the conclusion in this argument.To really come out ways for reducing the accident rate, more surveys are needed.


第一遍，看了看词语和语法，发现，打错太多。
打字还需练习。