Argument70 欢迎砖头，多谢！

connieUID: 203382

70 Studies show that in 70 percent of traffic accidents, at least one driver involved is less than 10 miles from home when the accident occurs. This statistic indicates that drivers have a tendency to drive incautiously when they are close to home, probably because familiar surroundings give them a false sense of security. Thus, the places where people feel safest are the places where they are in fact at greatest risk of serious injury.

This argument claimed that drivers have a tendency to drive incautiously when they are close to home. To support it the arguer cited a study that 10 percent of traffic accidents at least one driver involved is less than 10 miles from home. And the arguer draws a further conclusion that the places where people feel safest are the places where they are at greatest risk of serious injury. The argument is scant of support from these evidences for three reasons.

First of all, the study cited here is dubious that whether it is representative for the overall population. It is entirely possible that the studies cited are statistically wrong for its poor representative. Perhaps those accidents all happened in a community and the road condition was very poor so that the incidence of traffic accident is much higher than any other district. Common sense tells me that this would probably the case. If the arguer cannot put forward any further evidence about the reliability of the studies, it will lend little support of the argument.

Second, even if the study is credible, at least one driver involved is close to his or her home does not necessarily mean that the one who is around home is the very person that leads to the accident. There is no evidence that shows the driver who is close to home is the poor-skilled one. Without the caution of all the drivers involved, the accident may still happen.

Finally, the further conclusion the arguer draws is based on the assumptions that the safest places people feel equals to the places where is close to home for all the accident-involved ones and all the drivers in the accidents are getting serious injuries. Perhaps the drivers who are near home just had a little scrape and the safest places may probably not home. So it is too hastily to draw a conclusion, in which these terms above are the same to each other, respectively.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. In supporting the conclusions the arguer must provide the data about the percentage of accidents, in which the drivers who is responsible for an accident is close to home. To better assess it, the arguer should also offer the evidence that these accidences were in fact are serious and happened in the places where the drivers feel safest. Without eliminating the possibility that all the above would happen, it cannot convince me.

connieUID: 203382

奇怪中

AlierUID: 159518

This argument claimed that drivers have a tendency to drive incautiously when they are close to home. To support it the arguer cited a study that in 7010 percent of traffic accidents at least one driver involved is less than 10 miles from home. And the arguer draws a further conclusion that the places where people feel safest are the places where they are at greatest risk of serious injury.这里最好稍微承接一下，显得有点突兀 The argument is scant of support from these evidences for three reasons.

First of all, the study cited here is dubious inthat whether去掉whether it is may notrepresentative for the overall population. It is entirely possible that the studies cited are statistically wrong for its poor representative.这句和前面重复了，稍微改一下 Perhaps those accidents all happened in a community and the road condition was very poor so that the incidence of traffic accident is much higher than any other district这个感觉没有说到点上：为什么在家附近发生的accident多. Common sense tells me that this would probably the case.这句显得多余 If the arguer cannot put forward any further evidence about the reliability of the studies, it will lend little support ofto the argument.这段点找到了，但是没有说清楚，建议再举点possibility来反驳

Second, even if the study is credible, at least one driver involved is close to his or her home does not necessarily mean that the one who is around home is the very person that leads tolead
to 不太好，cause吧 the accident. There is no evidence that shows the driver who is close to home is the poor-skilled one.这个一样的毛病，和前面一句重复，还有，造成车祸可不一定是因为poor－skilled哦 Without the caution of all the drivers involved, the accident may still happen.这里似乎又扯到上段的论点上去了：accident可能由其他原因引起；而这段是在说不一定是离家近的人引起事故。

Finally, the further conclusion the arguer draws is based on the assumptions that the safest places people feel equalsis equal to the places where is去掉where is close to home for all the accident-involved ones and all the drivers in the accidents are getting serious injuries这句略显长，意思不太清晰了，稍微拆分一下为好. Perhaps the drivers who are near home just had a little scrape and the safest places may probably not home. So it is too hastily to draw a conclusion, in which these terms above are the same to each other, respectively.这段其实是说的两个点：familiar place！＝safest place；accident！＝severe injure，最好是分开举例说透彻些，说服力更强

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. In supporting the conclusions the arguer must provide the data about the percentage of accidents, in which the drivers who is responsible for an accident is close to home. To better assess it, the arguer should also offer the evidence that these accidences were in fact are serious and happened in the places where the drivers feel safest. Without eliminating the possibility that all the above would happen, it cannot convince me.结尾不错，不过再稍微简化下更好

这道算是逻辑比较混乱的一个了，我看了下，觉得错误点很多，但都不容易讲透。
恩，我待会下午写写看，大家再讨论。。

connieUID: 203382

多谢指点，还好有Alier 帮我看看：）呵呵，我会尽快改出来的

connieUID: 203382

This argument claimed that drivers have a tendency to drive incautiously when they are close to home. To support it the arguer cited a study that in 70 percent of traffic accidents at least one driver involved is less than 10 miles from home. And the arguer draws a further conclusion that the places where people feel safest are the places where they are at greatest risk of serious injury. So the argument is scant of support from these evidences for three reasons.

First of all, the study cited here is doubtful that whether it is representative for the overall population. It is entirely possible that the studies cited are statistically wrong for the potentialities that made the high incidence of the accident. Perhaps those accidents all happened in a community and the road condition there was very poor so that the drivers haven't accustomed to it before the accidents happened. Thus, the incidence of traffic accident is much higher than any other district. Common sense tells me that the road condition around the communities are usually not so good for driving as in ordinary roads. If the arguer cannot put forward any further evidence about the reliability of the studies, it will lend little support of to the argument.

Second, even if the study is credible, at least one driver involved is close to his or her home does not necessarily mean that the one who is around home is the very person that leads to cause the accident. There is no evidence that shows the driver who is close to home is the poor-skilled one.Maybe the person, who is far from home and who is also involved in the accident, is the one who should take full responsibility.Maybe the driver around home is very careful driving at the time of accident, yet we are not so sure about the other drivers. Without the elimination of the case above, the arguer cannot simply draw a conclusion that the drivers are likely to be careless and ultimately leading to an accident near home.
Finally, the further conclusion the arguer draws is based on the assumption that all the drivers are getting serious injuries. Perhaps the drivers having the accident near home just scraped their automobiles a little with no injuries at all. Perhaps they just had a small wound that no blood comes out. So it is too hastily to give an assertion, in which the arguer equated them to each other.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. In supporting the conclusions the arguer must provide the data about the percentage of accidents, in which the drivers who is responsible for an accident is close to home. To better assess it, the arguer should also offer the evidence that these accidences were in fact are serious and happened in the places where the drivers feel safest. Without eliminating the possibility that all the above would happen, it cannot convince me.