【Flyer杀G作文组】06月24日Argument79-By 潇

红绡UID: 2839171

ARGUMENT 79
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."
难度：★★★


  In this argument the author concludes that reducing trucking drivers’ accident rate can be realized simply by raising their drivers’ pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive relied on result of a survey which shows that after increasing drivers’ salary and training standards and limiting the number of hours per week for driving strictly, the number of accidents was reduced half as before the changes. This argument depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

  First of all, the author’s standpoint is based on the premise that pay raise or restraint of number of driving time would lead to decrease of traffic accidents. However, there is no data or survey to confirm this assumption right directly. The author must show that any one of the two measures would reduce incidence of accident effectively proved by some precise study or powerful proof or data from authoritative institutes to sustain the argument.

  Secondly, as to the method limiting the number of driving hours per week, the author has not offer sufficient data to verify that it can reduce the probability of accidents reliably because the editor has not explain conditions invested in the process of accidents after restricting time. He shows just only the changes of the number of accidents. For instance, if the Longhaul trucking company has set driving time limitation to be one third of former, while number of accidents becomes half of former, it cannot certify the conclusion developed by the author. Moreover, it is concerned the experience of Longhaul which involves a new measure to raise training standard, which is missed by the editor to develop a conclusion. So a new doubt has come out that if reduction of the number of accidents is caused by advancing driving training standard. It has indispensably shaken the argument as it stands.

  Simultaneously, the argument has some errors on logic without persuasion. For the first, as to the survive manifestos that the more pay drivers acquire, the less accidents occur. However, when the high-paying drivers are more experienced or stand on a higher level of driving skills than low-paying ones, the argument would hardly hold on the position definitely. It can just prove that less incidence of accidents leads to salary increasing, but cannot perform that the number of accidents decreases because of high-paying. Furthermore, there are many other causes resulting in accidents such as awful traffic, severe weather and so on. The conclusion is obtained arbitrarily because the author considered only the two methods mentioned above without thinking about comprehensive reasons leading to accidents seriously.
  
  In sum, the arguer has not supplied a series of forceful materials to support the argument with many flaws logically among the exposition. Obviously, the author cannot expose the real causes which lead to accidents and thus he or she cannot find potent methods to decrease occurrence of traffic accidents.

师大菜菜UID: 2838404

In this argument the author concludes that reducing trucking drivers’ accident rate can be realized simply by raising their drivers’ pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive relied on result of a survey which shows that after increasing drivers’ salary and training standards and limiting the number of hours per week for driving strictly, the number of accidents was reduced half as before the changes. This argument depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

  First of all, the author’s standpoint is based on the premise that pay raise or restraint of number of driving time would lead to decrease of traffic accidents. However, there is no data or survey to confirm this assumption right directly. The author must show that any one of the two measures would reduce incidence of accident effectively proved by some precise study or powerful proof or data from authoritative institutes to sustain the argument.
//感觉没有展开,直接说没有数据证明,攻击得不是很具体

  Secondly, as to the method limiting the number of driving hours per week, the author has not offer sufficient data to verify that it can reduce the probability of accidents reliably because the editor has not explain conditions invested in the process of accidents after restricting time. He shows just only the changes of the number of accidents. For instance, if the Longhaul trucking company has set driving time limitation to be one third of former, while number of accidents becomes half of former, it cannot certify the conclusion developed by the author. Moreover, it is concerned the experience of Longhaul which involves a new measure to raise training standard, which is missed by the editor to develop a conclusion. So a new doubt has come out that if reduction of the number of accidents is caused by advancing driving training standard. It has indispensably shaken the argument as it stands.
//这段攻击了两点, 还不错, 连接稍弱了一点,可以考虑用一下让步语气

  Simultaneously, the argument has some errors on logic without persuasion. For the first, as to the survive manifestos that the more pay drivers acquire, the less accidents occur. However, when the high-paying drivers are more experienced or stand on a higher level of driving skills than low-paying ones, the argument would hardly hold on the position definitely. It can just prove that less incidence of accidents leads to salary increasing, but cannot perform that the number of accidents decreases because of high-paying. Furthermore, there are many other causes resulting in accidents such as awful traffic, severe weather and so on. The conclusion is obtained arbitrarily because the author considered only the two methods mentioned above without thinking about comprehensive reasons leading to accidents seriously. //这段也攻击了两点 , 挺好的
  
  In sum, the arguer has not supplied a series of forceful materials to support the argument with many flaws logically among the exposition. Obviously, the author cannot expose the real causes which lead to accidents and thus he or she cannot find potent methods to decrease occurrence of traffic accidents.

字数足矣，还不错,可以多看几篇范文，多用让步语气连接。