第一篇ARGU, 谁拍我必回拍

Robust_ustcUID: 194958

大家帮忙指点下吧，谢谢
请留下链接，必回拍
175The 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."

It is natural to assume that to take the driver’s education course would do good to teenagers, given all experience showing a positive correlation between education and students’ rational behavior. In this particular argument, according to several accidents in and around Centerville that involved teenage drivers, the complaint of parents that they are too busy to teach their teenagers to drive, as well as the eliminated given alternatives of two driving schools, the author reaches the conclusion that all students should be required to take the driver’s education course at Centerville High School. Maybe the author has not thoroughly investigated the necessity of the program, as there are holes in logic used to try to persuade the school to do so.

First of all, by mentioning several accidents over the past two years involving teenage drivers in and around Centerville, an unstated by apparent assumption being that these accidents were caused by the teenagers’ lack of driver’s education, which may or may not be the case, depending on the details of the accidents, which the author provide none of to show the teenage drivers were responsible for the accidents. It is entirely possible that these accidents were merely unavoidable in such bad weather or bad road condition. Even it may be the other driver’s fault that caused these accidents; these teenage drivers might have done nothing wrong but were bumped into by another driver from the rear. Simply the accidents do not in and of itself cause blame on the teenage drivers. Without direct causal evidence, the writer’s argument fails to convince that all teenagers should be required to take such a course.

Another flaw in logic lies in fact that the author does not state the number of accidents that are actually caused by teenage drivers, especially the ratio of these accidents in the total number of all accidents—how many is “several”? Does it reach a significant percentage to be paid attention to? Citing this vague data about teenage drivers’ accidents without giving any need information need does not advanced the writer’s argument. Additionally, there is also no data provided about how many parents are on a tight budget, it is possible that these parents are only minorities, the number is too small to draw a general conclusion rather than solve it individually, for example, by social financial aid, again skewing the reasoning of the argument.

Furthermore, the author assumes that the driver’s education course would with no doubt be effectively preventing the accidents of teenage drivers, but there is no support for this assumption anywhere in the argument. What the author fails to take into consideration is the possibility that most teenagers do not drive; they may even have no cars. For them, only take the course without practice would not be of any use. Perhaps most teenagers have already taken the driver’s education course in the two driving school, therefore taking it the second time in Centerville High School means a waste of time for them. Or maybe the teenagers are not willing to take the course and will spend the time just sleeping or reading novels rather than listening; in that case, the course will make no difference.

In summary, the author’s argument is based on faulty reasoning and vague information. Without providing explicit details to show it was teenage drivers who were to blame for these accidents due to lack of driver’s education and direct evidence to establish a cause and effect relationship between the driver’s education course and the prevention of such accidents, the author’s advocation fails to deliver on its premise.

Robust_ustcUID: 194958

顶一下，别沉了

DriverEntryUID: 143979

标题要注意，看你改过了，但是还不行，要把ARGUMENT这个词写全。

总的来说还可以，不知道你限时了没有？ 开头罗嗦了点，而且没什么必要，直接说原作者有错误就好了，这样在限时时比较快。
几个错误攻击的还不错，比较具体，也还算充分。不过有些小的语法错误，比如：of to show the teenage , need information need

加油

bcomerUID: 182621

最初由 DriverEntry 发布
[B]标题要注意，看你改过了，但是还不行，要把ARGUMENT这个词写全。

总的来说还可以，不知道你限时了没有？ 开头罗嗦了点，而且没什么必要，直接说原作者有错误就好了，这?.

以下省略...... [/B]

……何必这么在意标题的格式呢？
多个空格不可以，ARGUMENT写成ARGU也不行！
……觉得只要写的比较接近格式就应该可以了……

Robust_ustcUID: 194958

谢谢DRIVERENTRY,我会继续努力的