argument175 第一次发哦,希望各位大虾能帮帮忙,只有10天就要考试了:(

矛盾的小猪UID??2132901

175
The 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."


In this argument, the arguer recommends that the only solution to decrease the accidents caused by the youth is to set some effective and mandatory driving courses in Centerville. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites that in the past two years serveral accidents near Cenerville have involved teenage drivers; some parents complain of being too busy to teach children how to drive and how to be a safe driver; they are also not rich enough to bear the high tuition for learning driving courses in two driving schools. In the first glance, the auguer’s opinions are very persuative. However, while close examining the evidence, we can find out there exists many critical flaws that prevent me from being convinced.

First of all, there is no exact survey or report on the reasons of accidents. Whether these teenagers had these accidents because of lacking driving knowledge and rulers is opened to doubt. Maybe they really know what can do and what can’t do during driving, but they weren’t always so careful and performanced a little more impatiently than those veterans; or the liability of the accidents was contributed to those who weren’t teenagers. If so, then there is no necessary to have all the teenagers taken the courses but it’s more benefit to arrange a regular training to all the drivers.

Secondly, those parents complain of lacking time to teach their children to drive, but they falsely consider that driving courses can make sure about the safety driving. I think it more depends on the drivers themselves. They should take driving into serious account, simply speaking, it’s a problem of attitude. Everyone masters the rulers of driving, but they don’t conform to them all the time. For the author doesn’t present me the evidence that the accidents were made by lacking knowledge, I can’t be convinced that the driving courses are seriously required.

Thirdly, even though these accidents were all made by the teenagers and they are greatly in need of learning, sponsoring an effective andmandatory program is not the only solution. The governers can cut down the tuition for driving or increase the penalty if accidents happen. Because setting up some new courses will unavoidly enquire the schools to cut off some present courses, we must compare the important of the both and then make a decision. Above all, the most key task for high schools is to educate children to learn from books. So driving is a practical course which need much exercise. Meanwhile, the school can’t supply with so many cars for students to practise. Considering all of the above factors, it’s better to learn driving from driving schools.

On the other hands, I think these factors should be considered. The accidents happened because the road was too narrow or the condition of the road in and around Centerville was poor, if so, it’s more urgent to improve the road so as to decrease accident rate. Moreover, though these accidents were around Centerville, it was not to say they were committed by the teenagers. If the author can’t rule out that the peacebrakers weren’t outlanders, I can believe teenage drivers in Centerville offend the rulers and need a further study for driving.

In sum, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the article can’t lend strong support to what arguer claims. To evaluate it, I suggest the author should provide more evidence concerning the cause of the accidents. Meanwhile, if the auguer can prove it’s exclusive to promote that proposal to decrease accidents, we would be better convinced. Or the argument is logically unaccepted.

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-2-13 23:57 编辑 ]

矛盾的小猪UID??2132901

哎,没人理我啊,那么糟糕吗