Argu 18 (上海高频）~留链必反！！还有20天~十分愿与各位结成aw互拍对子！~~

1bueh17UID：2681271

题目：ARGUMENT18 - The following appeared in an editorial in a PruntyCounty newspaper.

"In an attempt to improve highwaysafety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from 55 miles per hourto 45 on all major county roads. But the 55 mph limit should be restored,because this safety effort has failed. Most drivers are exceeding the new speedlimit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased onlyslightly. If we want to improve the safety of our roads, we should insteadundertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler Countycompleted five years ago: increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads.Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet therewere 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year thanthere were five years ago."
字数：469
用时：00:33:07
日期：2010/7/30 23:38:23

In the argument, the author comes to theconclusion that Prunty County (PC) should undertake the same kind of roadimprovement project that Butler County (BC) takes. She listed several reasonsto justify her claim. Although well-presented the argument is, it is notwell-reasoned enough. In the following paragraphs, I will point out theAchilles' heel of this argument step by step.

To begin with, when sample are used to makea general claim about a particular group, the sample should be enough close intime to the generalization they are used to support, so that, historicalchanges will not invalidate the generalization. In this case, five years may betoo long, which may render it useless to make the same project in PC as that inBC 5 years ago. Perhaps in this 5 years, the function of autos have changed alot, so it is more easier for the driver to take the car into control facingdangerous conditions. Or perhaps drivers' habits have changed during these 5years. So without ruling out these possibilities, it is not convincing toaccess to the conclusion. Unfortunately, this is merely the first sin of thisargument.

Second, the author commits a fallacy ofhasty generalization. Even if BC has not taken the actions to increase lanewidths and resurfacing rough roads 5 years ago, it also could reach thesituation that there are less accidents reported. It is highly possible thatother factors may have contributed to fewer accidents. For instance, the driverin BC gradually forms a good habit in car driving. Or perhaps the safety ofcars has an obvious improvement resulting in fewer accidents. Withoutsufficient evidence to rule out these factors, we can hardly reach such aconclusion.

In addition, based on a faulty analogy, theauthor simply draws a conclusion that PC should also take the method in BC. Theanalogy falsely depends on the assumption that BC and PC are similar. It isentirely possible that the BC and PC differs a lot from several aspects such ascar numbers, road condition and drivers' habits. Without accounting for importantpossible difference between BC and PC, the author cannot reasonably prove theproposed method as it might be a red herring to PC. So in my opinion, tostrengthen the argument, the author should offer more evidence, perhaps by wayof survey and research program to prove that PC will indeed reap the same benefitfrom this method.

To sum up, all the conclusions at thisstage are not cogent and seemed as castles in air in absence of all-roundmanner. More evidence should be provided to consolidate this argument.Otherwise, just following the step of the argument without taking responsibilityfor the determination will probably lead us to an outcome cross the purpose.

ppjoyceUID：2623631

改好
已经回复到开贴改文的地方 上传了附件
：）