Argument16 请大家看看 谢谢

zhivagoUID: 192018

16.The following appeared in an editorial in a Prunty County newspaper. "In an attempt to
improve highway safety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from 55 miles per
hour to 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 speed limit and the accident
rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly. If we want to improve the safety of our roads, we should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than there were five years ago."


  In this argument, the arguer claims that the 55 mph limit should be restored, instead of the new 45 mph limit, and should improve the road condition in Prunty County. The arguer believes that the new safty effort has failed because the accident rate has decreased only slightly. In addition, the arguer provides the evidence that in Butler County where the
speed limit is 55 mph, the traffic accident rate has decreased through improving the road condition. This argument is unconvincing for several flows.
  
  First, the argument rests on the unreasonable assumption that the new act is ineffective. It has been mentioned in the paragraph that the accident rate has decreased though slightly, and though it is true that most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit now ,
this is most likely because that drivers haven't adapt themsevles to the new rule. Perhaps, with the time past, more and more drivers will obey this rule and finally slow down their speed, in this case, as any one can see, the traffic accident rate could drop dramaticaly.Thus, there is no reason to assert that the new speed limit has no effect.

  Second, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy. Though the Butler County has decreased its traffic accident rate throgh improving the road condition, it doesn't mean that the Prunty County needs to do the same thing. It is possible that the roads in Butler five years ago were tough and narrow and this is the major reason of accidents, so improving
the road condition could surely decrease the accident rate. But if the road condition in Prunty is good enough and the major reason of accidents is overspeed, then obviously, it is no use to improve the road condition. Therefore, the claim for improving the road conditionis not reasonable.

  Third, It is true that the traffic accident rate has decresed by 25 percent in Butler, the exact data has been mentioned. Maybe the rate is high and higher than in Prunty, in this case, other methods still need to install in order to decrease the high accident rate.

  In summary, as it stand, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to give more evident to convince us that the new 45 mph limit is really ineffective. Additionally more data about the traffic accident rate in Butler is needed.

天青地白UID: 161876

粗看了一下
逻辑是完全的新东方思维，第一句都开门见山。
建议从批判第二个逻辑开始就用承上启下句式。
一些简单的语法拼写错误尽量避免哈
个人建议，仅供参考

zhivagoUID: 192018

fei chang gan xie