616就考了，心里没底，望前辈给看看我的语言和逻辑怎么样，非常感谢

ligongcaofei123UID：3309636

    The following is a letter to the editor of the Waymarsh Times.

    "Traffic here in Waymarsh is becoming a problem. Although just three years ago a state traffic survey showed that the typical driving commuter took 20 minutes to get to work, the commute now takes closer to 40 minutes, according to the survey just completed. Members of the town council already have suggested more road building to address the problem, but as well as being expensive; the new construction will surely disrupt some of our residential neighborhoods. It would be better to follow the example of the nearby city of Garville. Last year Garville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work, giving them coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Garville have dropped since the policy was implemented, and people from Garville tell me that commuting times
have fallen considerably. There is no reason why a policy like Garville's shouldn't work equally well in Waymarsh."

    Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

    The arguer suggests Waymarsh to follow the example of Garville to rewards people who share rides to work in order to save the commute time and reduce pollution. To support his/her view, he/she indicates that people from Garville says their commuting times have fallen considerably and the pollution levels have also dropped. Well-intentioned the arguer is, specific evidence is needed to identify the feasibility of these suggestions.

Firstly, the survey may not be reliable to conclude that the commute times are longer than before. There is no specific about the range and number of participants of the survey. If people who conduct the survey just ask few people who live far away from their work places or they choose a day when many people are busy and cars are more than usual, it is unreasonable for the arguer to think the commute times have really increased.
    Secondly, even if the commute times are indeed longer, we are not guaranteed that the situation will be better if we take measures like Garville. Situations vary in different places. If people in Waymarsh cares more about private affairs and resist this policy, the policy may play an adverse part. Another possibly is that Garville is comparably small and people’s work places are near, which make it possible and convenient for people to take car pool. However, if Wrymarsh is too big and people cannot find appropriate mates to travel together, the suggestion will also be proved in vain.
    Thirdly, the argument does not provide the pervious criterion of commuting times of Garville. The arguer just claims that people from Garvalle tell him/her that commuting times have fallen considerably, what if the present times are still longer than Wrymarsh? Does it make sense to take measures which even are not as good as available ones? And the people who talk to the arguer are also be questioned for whether they are representative of the majority of people in Garvalle.
    In summary, the specific evidence such as the range of people surveyed in Wrymarsh, the situations of the two regions and the previous commuting times of Garvalle should be presented before we accept what the arguer suggests. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer must make detailed explanation.