【ARGU41】【第二篇】【感觉时间不够啊！】

浅墨儿UID: 3211327

题目：The following appeared in a health newsletter.
        "A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that number is nearly 80 percent. Another study, however, suggests that during the same ten-year period, the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent. These results demonstrate that bicyclists feel safer because they are wearing helmets, and they take more risks as a result. Thus, to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents, the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets."

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

————————————————————分割线——————————————————————
正文：
    The newsletter draws a conclusion based on a series of study data and deduction which seem to be convincing.At first glance,these analysis and recommendations cannot be suspicious.However,in fact,it has caused several logical defects,which,weaken the credibility of the recommendation and suggestion discussed in this newletter.

    First,in my view,the  200 percent of the increasing number of bicycle-related accidents may not the result of the increasing number of bicyclists who wear helmets thoroughly.Perhaps in ten years,traffic condition tends to be more difficult for bicyclists to ride bicycle safely than ten years ago.And that,the number of car which have treatened seriously to the safety of bicyclists is an important factor which the letter ignored absolutely.This argument fails to rule out the possibilities of these factors which may influence the basic assumption of this study.

    Second,this argument ignores a crucial data,which indicates the reason of increasing number of bicyclists who wear helmets—the change from 35 percent to 80 percent.As this argument assumed,wearing helmet is dangerous for bicycclists,which,however,is a paradox between the reason  and result.The increasing number of bicylist wearing helmet may reflect the people's agreement to the safety which helmets contribute to,rather,the superficial analysis based on the contrast data.

    Third,even if it's true that helmet leads to a dangerous condition to bicylists,this argument cursorily presents that the peril of helmet results from the feeling of bicyclists that weaing helmets makes them safer to take more risks.The letter fails to consider other factors,for example,the design pattern of helmet may have adverse influence to bicyclists.Accordingly,this argument lacks of basic logical deduction of this traffic phenomenon,which makes it more unconvincing.

    Futher more,even if it's true that the adventurous willing results in the peril of helmet，this argument recommends only suggestion,which,reducing the number of helmet bicyclists wear.Perhaps,there are better solutions,for example,we can modify the design of helmet to adapt to the new condition of road,or,adjust the traffic rules which contribute to the safety of bicyclists.One-sided thought lead this argument to a dilemma of rigid choice.

    To sum up,this argument fails to consider several crucial possibilities of the cause of this research data.Its conclusion lacks of overall logical deduction.If it rules out these factors discussed above,and makes a poly-sided conclusion which contributes to the safety of bicyclists,its research data and argument could be more convincing and logical.   

PS：本文用时。。。。一个小时。。。。作文要跪了。。。。。求各位大侠提些好建议啊。。。感激不尽。。。。:dizzy:

zy3854UID: 3316828

The newsletter draws a conclusion based on a series of study data and deduction which seem to be convincing. At first glance, these analyses and recommendations cannot be suspicious. However, in fact, it has caused several logical defects, which, weaken the credibility of the recommendation and suggestion discussed in this newsletter.

First, in my view, the 200 percent of the increasing number of bicycle-related accidents may not the result of the increasing number of bicyclists who wear helmets thoroughly. Perhaps in ten years, traffic condition tends to be more difficult for bicyclists to ride bicycle safely than ten years ago. And that, the number of cars which have threatened seriously to the safety of bicyclists is an important factor which the letter ignored absolutely. This argument fails to rule out the possibilities of these factors which may influence the basic assumption of this study.

Second, this argument ignores a crucial data, which indicates the reason of increasing number of bicyclists who wear helmets—the change from 35 percent to 80 percent. As this argument assumed, wearing helmet is dangerous for bicyclists, which, however, is a paradox between the reason and result. The increasing number of bicyclists wearing helmet may reflect the people's agreement to the safety which helmets contribute to, rather, the superficial analysis based on the contrast data.

Third, even if it's true that helmet leads to a dangerous condition to bicyclists, this argument cursorily presents that the peril of helmet results from the feeling of bicyclists that wearing helmets makes them safer to take more risks. The letter fails to consider other factors, for example, the design pattern of helmet may have an adverse influence two bicyclists. Accordingly, this argument lacks of basic logical deduction of this traffic phenomenon, which makes it more unconvincing.

Further more, even if it's true that the adventurous willing results in the peril of helmet，this argument recommends only suggestion, which, reducing the number of helmet bicyclists wear. Perhaps, there are better solutions, for example, we can modify the design of helmet to adapt to the new condition of the road, or, adjust the traffic rules which contribute to the safety of bicyclists. The one-sided thought leads this argument to a dilemma of rigid choice.

To sum up, this argument fails to consider several crucial possibilities of the cause of this research data. Its conclusion lacks of overall logical deduction. If it rules out these factors discussed above, and makes a poly-sided conclusion which contributes to the safety of bicyclists, its research data and argument could be more convincing and logical.



句号 逗号 后面都要空一格    可能是写得太急了部分拼写错误。



我也写了一篇一样的
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... &extra=page%3D1
可以帮我参考参考