- 最后登录
- 2016-8-9
- 在线时间
- 44 小时
- 寄托币
- 64
- 声望
- 51
- 注册时间
- 2015-2-18
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 23
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 120
- UID
- 3596023
- 声望
- 51
- 寄托币
- 64
- 注册时间
- 2015-2-18
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 23
|
本帖最后由 难得沉默v 于 2015-8-18 13:49 编辑
132&134&136) The following appeared in a letter to the school board in the town of Centerville.
All students should be required to take the driver's education course at Centerville High School. In the past two years, several accidents in and around Centerville have involved teenage drivers. Since a number of parents in Centerville have complained that they are too busy to teach their teenagers to drive, some other instruction is necessary to ensure that these teenagers are safe drivers. Although there are two driving schools in Centerville, parents on a tight budget cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. Therefore an effective and mandatory program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem.
In the argument, the arguer recommends that all students should be required to take the driver's education course at Centerville High School. To support this recommendation the arguer points out that several accidents have involved teenage drivers in the past years in Centerville, and a number of parents are too busy to teach their teenagers to drive, and parents on a tight budget cannot afford to pay for driving instruction, so the school should set the driver’s education course for all students. Although this argument might seem reasonable at first glance, it is logically flawed in several critical respects.
To begin with, the arguer assumes that these teenager's accidents happened because these teenagers were not good at driving. Although this is entirely possible, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that these accidents are not teenagers' faults.
An appropriate example is not very far to seek. For example, when a teenager is driving home at night, a driver who drank alcohol in the dinner hit the teenager's car from the behind. The arguer's assumption is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely.
In the second place, the arguer assumes that all the students should take the driver's education course. But the arguer does not supply any evidence to bolster this assumption. So the assumption is highly suspected. It is quite possible that some students are good at driving and do not need to take the driver's education course any more, and maybe other students do not need to drive. Without taking these situations into account, there assumption is absolutely ill-conceived.
The last but not the least important, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that an effective and mandatory program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to make teenagers have chances to take the driver's education course. But the arguer fail to consider some factors. For example, setting the driver's education course need some teachers and fundamental applications, which will cost a lot of money that maybe the school cannot afford. Even if the school has the ability to set this class, it may not have good effects. Besides, there are another solutions to make teenagers have chances to take the driver’s education course. For instance, the school can call for the sociality to donate some money in order to give the teenagers a chance to take a driver’s education course in a driving institution. So the assumption is incogitant.
To sum up, the arguer’s argument is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidences that are more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.
|
|