【big fish】3月18日Argument79-by jjooyy

jjooyyUID: 2704028

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."

The argument suggests that raising drivers' pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive is advisable for trucking companies to reduce their accident rate. It is also supported by a survey of some truck companies, and some facts of the Longhaul trucking company. Although it seems reasonable at first glance, but there do exist some logic fallacies in the argument.

First of all, the limits on the hours drivers could drive per week, a pay increase and training standards may not be the real reason for the decrease of accidents the next year. Other factors, like whether, traffic, still cannot be ruled out. If the following year has much more sunny days and much less rainy and snowy days than that year, it is not unexpected to find the decreasing, because accidents are more likely to happen in rainy and snowy days. In addition, one year's decline cannot represent whether the rate truly decreased, as it is too short.

In addition, the author wrongly presumes the correlation between the high salaries and the happening of accidents of drivers. Actually, whether drivers are likely to have accidents is one of the most important standards the company would judge the drivers. So the trucking company would pay drivers who are least likely to have an accident, high salaries, for their excellent performance, not the other way around.

Finally, the author also makes a false analog between every trucking companies and the Longhaul trucking companies. There might be many differences among them, such as the average salary of a driver, the annual accident rate and so forth. Without comparing the similarities and differences of them, the conclusion is likely to fail to reach the expected result. For instance, if other companies already give drivers much salaries than others, it is useless, and also a waste of money to raise drivers salaries.

To conclude, the argument suffers from several fallacies, which leads to the conclusion incredible.

看了GPA, 很伤心啊。。。

topranUID: 2310216

1# jjooyy
我用这种颜色标注我觉得应该再斟酌下的语句
我用这种颜色标注我觉得一定有错的语句
我用这种颜色标注我觉得我好喜欢的语句
我用这种颜色标注我觉得可以再多说点的地方
========================
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."
==============================================================================

The argument suggests that raising drivers' pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive is advisable for trucking companies to reduce their accident rate. It is also supported by a survey of some truck companies, and some facts of the Longhaul trucking company. Although it seems reasonable at first glance, but there do exist some logic fallacies in the argument.

First of all, the limits on the hours drivers could drive per week, a pay increase and training standards may not be the real reason for the decrease of accidents the next year. Other factors, like whether, traffic, still cannot be ruled out. If the following year has much more sunny days and much less rainy and snowy days than that year, it is not unexpected to find the decreasing, because accidents are more likely to happen in rainy and snowy days. In addition, one year's decline cannot represent whether the rate truly decreased, as it is too short.

In addition, the author wrongly presumes the correlation between the high salaries and the happening of accidents of drivers. Actually, whether drivers are likely to have accidents is one of the most important standards the company would judge the drivers. So the trucking company would pay drivers who are least likely to have an accident, high salaries, for their excellent performance, not the other way around.

Finally, the author also makes a false analog between every trucking companies and the Longhaul trucking companies. There might be many differences among them, such as the average salary of a driver, the annual accident rate and so forth. Without comparing the similarities and differences of them, the conclusion is likely to fail to reach the expected result. For instance, if other companies already give drivers much salaries than others, it is useless, and also a waste of money to raise drivers salaries.

To conclude, the argument suffers from several fallacies, which leads to the conclusion incredible.
=============================
(1) quantity is always a main reason for quality, 324 is a little risky , I think more will be better .
(2) try to use some strong words from template, I think it can embelish your work a lot.
(3) the logic is clear and structure is good.