argument79 7月25就要考了，ScortNow判了4分，大家帮忙拍拍。

luoxi1000UID: 197343

The following appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry.
"The Longhaul trucking company was concerned that its annual accident rate (the number of accidents per mile driven) was too high. It granted a significant pay increase to its drivers and increased its training standards. It also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive. The following year, its trucks were involved in half the number of accidents as before the changes were implemented. A survey of other trucking companies found that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident. Therefore, trucking companies wishing to reduce their accident rate can do so simply by raising their drivers' pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive."


In this argument, the author made a statement that in order to reduce trucking companies' accident rate, they should raise their drivers' pay and limit the overall number of driving hours. His conclusion was based on the Longhaul company's experience, and a survey which showed that highest-paid drivers were less likely to have accidents. However, a careful examination wiil reveal how groudless this argument is.

First of all, the arguer made a comparison between the Longhaul and all other companies in assuming that the causes to accidents are all the same. In fact, as for different companies, there may be different reasons for accidents. Consider, for example, a trucking company, that owns many out-dated trucks. These trucks might be used many years and can't be easily handled, thus the right way to reduce accidents rate is changing these old truck to new ones. Besides, some companies might have business of transporting goods on the roads with terrible weather condition, so these companies are better to find some good road lines for decreasing the accident chances. In short, simply copying the experience of the Longhaul is probably not suitable for all other companies.

Moreover, the survey which the conclusion is based on is too vague to be convinced. It lacks the information about the number of companies surveyed and the number of respondents. It is possible that there were 1000 companies surveyed, but only 10 companies responsed. Then, such survey had little value. In addition, the arguer also didn't provide any information about the time to conduct the survey. If it was conducted many years ago, it also had little value, not to say as a proof to illustrate anything.

Finally, even if it is true that highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accidents, it does not necessarily
establish a causal relationship between the pay increase and accidents decrease. It is most likely that because the drivers have had fewer accidents, the company inrease their pay. Thus the author commited a fallacy of changing the cause and reasult.

To sum up, this augument is unconvinced since its evidence doesn't lend enough support to the conclusion. To strength it, the arguer should provide some information about the causes of other companies and the validity of the survey.

seraph_hydeUID: 184809

scoreitnow 到底是人还是软件啊??

guesser198414UID: 2106027

The following appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry.
"The Longhaul trucking company was concerned that its annual accident rate (the number of accidents per mile driven) was too high. It granted a significant pay increase to its drivers and increased its training standards. It also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive. The following year, its trucks were involved in half the number of accidents as before the changes were implemented. A survey of other trucking companies found that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident. Therefore, trucking companies wishing to reduce their accident rate can do so simply by raising their drivers' pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive."


In this argument, the author made a statement that in order to reduce trucking companies' accident rate, they should raise their drivers' pay and limit the overall number of driving hours. His conclusion was based on the Longhaul company's experience, and a survey which showed that highest-paid drivers were less likely to have accidents. However, a careful examination wiil reveal how groudless this argument is.

First of all, the arguer made a comparison between the Longhaul and all other companies in assuming that the causes to accidents are all the same. In fact, as for different companies, there may be different reasons for accidents. Consider, for example, a trucking company, that owns many out-dated trucks. These trucks might be used many years and can't be easily handled, thus the right way to reduce accidents rate is changing these old truck to new ones. Besides, some companies might have business of transporting goods on the roads with terrible weather condition, so these companies are better to find some good road lines for decreasing the accident chances. In short, simply copying the experience of the Longhaul is probably not suitable for all other companies.

Moreover, the survey which the conclusion is based on is too vague to be convinced (the survey on which the conclusion was drawn is too vague to be convincing). It lacks the information about the number of companies surveyed and the number of respondents. It is possible that there were 1000 companies surveyed, but only 10 companies responsed. Then, such survey had little value. In addition, the arguer also didn't provide any information about the time to conduct the survey. If it was conducted many years ago, it also had little value, not to say as a proof to illustrate anything.

Finally, even if it is true that highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accidents, it does not necessarily establish a causal relationship between the pay increase and accidents decrease. It is most likely that because the drivers have had fewer accidents, the company inrease their pay. Thus the author commited a fallacy of changing the cause and reasult.

To sum up, this augument is unconvinced since its evidence doesn't lend enough support to the conclusion. To strength it, the arguer should provide some information about the causes of other companies and the validity of the survey.
前面三段还不错，但有些句子用的不很舒服。
Finally那段欠妥，工资和事故率之间的关系并不是作者得出的，而是别的公司调查的结果。结尾写有些淡薄。
拼写错误不少，而且时态比较混乱。

cold_sunUID: 210524

具体就不改了，大体说说你文章的问题。
一，第一段有两处拼写错误，放到WORD里看一下。
二，逻辑错误找的不全。It also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive. The following year, its trucks were involved in half the number of accidents as before the changes were implemented. 这块可以攻击，比如说如果出车次数比以前一半还要少，那事故数减少一半反而相当于增多。即使真的事故减少，也不一定是由于公司的措施，也许是国家指定了更加严格的交通法，或公路状况改善…………这个错误很重要。我认为。
三，你攻击第三点时显的力不从心，只用一句话概括显的太苍白。
四，攻击顺序安排的不是很好，我觉得你攻击的第一点应该放到最后，用even if真的是由于那些措施使The Longhaul trucking company 改善，这些措施不一定适合别的公司……

暂时想到的就这些，说的不对的地方忘见谅，我29号考，也在摸索ARGU中，共同进步吧。   最后，我觉得4分给的还是比较合适的。

thzx0483UID: 179333

我感觉字数稍微少了点，这样深度就不够！

digitalUID: 210726

看得我胆寒。。。
那什么样子的argument才符合5.6分标准呢。我觉得这已经很不错了呀。

extrodinaryUID: 2108448

同寒！