argument18 欢迎砸砖 请留下链接 24小时内必回

zhoulin00001UID: 189304

------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer recommends that Prunty County should restore the 55 mph limit and undertaken the road improvement project the same as Butler County to lower the accident rate. At first glance this argument is very specific and convincing. A careful examination of it, however, would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the argument is based on the groundless assumption that the 45 mph limit has failed, but the mere fact that most driver exceed this new speed limit and the accident rate has decreased only slightly is insufficient to prove it. As the arguer has said most of the divers disobey the limit, so the new limit itself has no problem, it is the poor management and supervision system causes this safety effort does not have distinct effect. We can assume that the accident rate will decrease sharply when the county enforces the supervision.

Besides, no evidence shows that the superficial success in Butler County is real success. The arguer only cites the decrease of accident rate in Butter County comparing with the last years’ without mentioning the rate in Prunty County. It is quite possible that although the accident rate has decreased dramatically, it is still higher than the rate in Prunty County. In this sense, the so-called experience in Butter County has no little value to use for reference.

Finally, granted that the improvement in Butter County is successful and the new safety effort in Prunty County has failed. It is still too early to conclude that Prunty County should adopt Butter County's project without comparing the condition between the two counties. The road level in Prunty County may be very low: the lane is very narrow and the surface is very rough, it is the poor condition of roads cause the high accident rate there, so the improvement can decrease it sharply. Meanwhile, the roads standard in Prunty County might be very high and it is no need to improve it. Thus the simple adoption of the project will not have any effect at all and only waste their money.

To sum up, this argument is not well reasoning and lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not leaf strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove that the new speed limit safety does not suit for Prunty County at all and the roads in Prunty County need to be improved indeed.

davidjackyUID: 135962

你们两个挨着一起发同样的帖子，不知道主动一点？
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=252742
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=252745

iverUID: 198348

No.1 argument18 欢迎砸砖 请留下链接 24小时内必回
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer recommends that Prunty County should restore the 55 mph limit and undertaken the road improvement project the same as Butler County to lower the accident rate. At first glance this argument is very specific and convincing. A careful examination of it, however, would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the argument is based on the groundless assumption that the 45 mph limit has failed, but the mere fact that most driver exceed this new speed limit and the accident rate has decreased only slightly is insufficient to prove it. As the arguer has said most of the divers disobey the limit, so the new limit itself has no problem, it is the poor management and supervision system causes this safety effort does not have distinctsignificant effect. We can assume that the accident rate will decrease sharply whenif the county enforces the supervision.

Besides, no evidence shows that the superficial success in Butler County is real successsuccessful. The arguer only cites the decrease of accident rate in Butter County comparing with the last years’ without mentioning the rate in Prunty County. It is quite possible that although the accident rate has decreased dramatically, it is still higher than the rate in Prunty County. In this sense, the so-called experience in Butter County has no little value to use for reference.

Finally, granted that the improvement in Butter County is successful and the new safety effort in Prunty County has failed. It is still too early to conclude that Prunty County should adopt Butter County's project without comparing the condition between the two counties. The road level in Prunty County may be very low: the lane is very narrow and the surface is very rough, it is the poor condition of roads cause the high accident rate there, so the improvement can decrease it sharply. Meanwhile, the roads standard in Prunty County might be very high and it is no need to improve it. Thus the simple adoption of the project will not have any effect at all and only waste their money.

To sum up, this argument is not well reasoning and lack ofcredibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not leaf strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing the arguer would have to provide more evidenceevidences to prove that the new speed limit safety does not suit fit for Prunty County at all and the roads in Prunty County need to be improved indeed.
总体写的很好，连接词用的可以，还有一些句型！
还有少量的语法错误请注意！
祝：顺利！
我的：https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=252778