【来看看】Argument 123/60

MELODYSKIINGUID: 2841950

123. 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 accidents caused by bicycling 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, there is clearly a call for the government to strive to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents by launching an education program that concentrates on the factors other than helmet use that are necessary for bicycle safety."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument appeals for an education program about bicycle safety rather than a requirement of helmet use in order to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents, based on the premise that bicyclists feel safer wearing helmets, which leads to an increasing number of bicycle-related accidents. It seems logical, at the first glance, to agree with the recommendation; however, to fully evaluate its validation, a number of questions should be answered.

Firstly, by citing two studies about the helmet use and bicycle accidents, the author of the argument intends to conclude that the increased helmet use results in more accidents. However, the argument fails to provide information about where the two studies are conducted and who answered the surveys. Are the two studies conducted in the same places? If the first one is a nationalwide study, investigating all the states in the US, but the second one taken place only in one of the states, the conclusion will be highly suspect. For example, the average rate of helmet use nationalwide increased by 55% in the past ten years, but that of California, the place the second survey is conducted, where bicycle-related accidents has increased 200%, perhaps drops 20%. In this case, we can hardly come to the conclusion that the increased use of helmet is correlated with the escalated number of bicycle accidents.

Even both surveys are operated in exact the same places and there is no holes of sample selecting and investigating approaches, we still cannot draw the causality between helmet use and number of accidents simplistically, for the surveys only show us the correlation, rather than the causality. It is a fallacious reasoning unless other possible causal explanations have been considered and ruled out. For example, do they take risks, such as running a red light and speeding, just because their life paces move faster, rather than the safety feeling with a helmet? Do most of the bicycle-related accidents occur due to the risk-taking behavior of bicyclists? Accidents are likely to be caused by an increasing number of cars and busier traffic. Lack of information to rule out these kinds of alternative explanations, the final conclusion that the wider helmet use results in more accidents is unconvincing.

Another questions necessary to be clear in order to assess the validity of the argument is whether the serious injuries from bicycle accidents have increased or decrease in the past ten years. The author only mentions that the bicycle-related accidents hikes, which is different from the serious injuries. Perhaps, inconsequential accidents, like light conflicts or slight crashes, occur more frequently as the density of population grows. However, thanks to the protection of helmets, serious injuries decrease dramatically. In this case, calling on education program that focuses on the factors other than helmet use, the recommendation goes in the opposite directions. The government should keep on encouraging and requiring bicyclists to wear helmets, instead.

In sum, it might be necessary to launch a program educating people about bicycle safety, but the argument is rift with holes and shaky assumptions. If the author provides evidences that verify the both studies are conducted in the same places, rules out casual explanations of increased accidents other than helmet use, shows the serious injuries increase rapidly, the argument will be more persuasive. Otherwise, the government should not adopt the recommendation to less on encouraging helmet use.

MELODYSKIINGUID: 2841950

stated and/or unstated assumptions 这种最好写。。。

60. The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice for a client.

"Most homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last heating season that region experienced 90 days with below-normal temperatures, and climate forecasters predict that this weather pattern will continue for several more years. Furthermore, many new homes are being built in the region in response to recent population growth. Because of these trends, we predict an increased demand for heating oil and recommend investment in Consolidated Industries, one of whose major business operations is the retail sale of home heating oil."

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument recommends investment in Consolidated Industries in northeastern United States, based on the premise that the demand for heating oil is increasing as the winters in several coming years are predicted to be long and colder than normal and the population is growing. While there might be business opportunity for retail sales of home heating oil in those cities, the proposal fails to provide a cogent and persuasive argument, because it lies on a number of ramshackle assumptions for which no evidence has been given.

One of the reasons that lead to an increase in the demand for heating oil, according to the argument, is the predicted long and colder winters in following years. Nevertheless, the author wrongly perceives the prediction as accurate. Confined to the contemporary meteorological technology, climate forecast is unlikely to be precise. Instead of a certainty, a probability is reported, which the author fail to note. If the probability of such long and colder weather pattern continuing for several more years is only 5% or 10%, we can hardly expect the demand for oil to hike. On the other hand, a 90% probability can probably result in a higher demand for heating oil.

Another premise, considering the recent population growth and new homes in the region, the author concludes that the needs for heating oil will rise by assuming that new homes are also heated by oil. Nevertheless, as a traditional fuel for heating, oil might be outmoded for new houses. Advanced technology and fuel may have been adopted for heating, such as water looping or electricity, which is cheaper, more efficient and energy-saving. In this case, a boom of demand is unlikely to occur. Moreover, if people using traditional oil as their major fuel switch to the new technology for heating due to its high efficiency, the demand is going to shrink rather than rise.

Moreover, the author predicted a profit for the Consolidated Industries, whose major business operations is the retail sales, with an increased demand for heating oil, by assuming that people in the northeastern cities often purchase fuel from retailers. Nonetheless, they probably subscribe fuels from big energy companies or fuel contractors, which seems to be more convenient. If it is true, the sales will be limited to small quantity and the revenue may well outweigh the costs, leading the investment to an experience of failure.

In sum, the argument is rift with holes and shaky assumptions. If the author provides a high probability of the long and cold winter maintaining in the following years, exclude the possibility of the use as substitutes for heating and ensure that the households prefer to purchases fuels from retailers, the argument will be greatly strengthened. Devoid of the additional evidence mentioned above, we should be wary of accepting the recommendation of the argument. Otherwise, we will probably fail in our business.