Argument 31 3.2 小鸡快跑作文组

longxuUID: 2290268

TOPIC: ARGUMENT31 - The following appearedin the editorial section of a newsmagazine.

"Some states are creating new lawsthat restrict the use of of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles.Such legislation, however, is sheer folly. Although some people with cellphones undoubtedly cause problems on the road, including serious accidents, themajority do not. Besides, problems are also caused by drivers who aredistracted by any number of other activities, from listening to the radio todisciplining children. Since there is no need to pass legislation restrictingthese and other such activities, it follows that there is no need to restrictpeople's freedom to use a device that they find convenient-or helpful inemergencies."



Based on the evidence that only some peopleusing the cell phones cause traffic problems on the road and there are otheractivities to distract the driver's attention, the argument unfairly concludesthat it is unnecessary to pass the law to restrict drivers to use the handheldcell phones. From the argument, I find some flawed evidence and assumption insome critical aspects.

First of all, the argument unreasonablyassumes that the number of drivers who cause the accidents due to the headheldcell phones is only a small percentage of the whole number of drivers in theroad. Yet, the arguer fails to provide the persuasive percentage , because ofthe using headheld cell phones, of all accidents in the states. It is verylikely that the drivers who using cell phones in the street are the majority ofthe all accidents. Thus, the law should be passed in order to restrict theactivities.

Next point, the assumption that there areother activities which can distract drivers from watching the situation ofroads and have not been forbidden by any law seems logical but still cannot beinterpreted. There is no relationship between using cell phone and theseactivities in this analysis. In that the activity of using cell phones duringdriving can cause accidents, it should be restricted by the law, though theother activities can also cause the same results. And, the arguer cannot supplyany evidence whether there are requirement from the public for a law to forbid orrestrict the other activities.

Last but not least, the argument makes anunjustifiable analogy between driving and the emergencies. It is absurd toconsider using cell phones in the road as a emergencies. Besides, the law justrestricts the drivers to use the cell phone when they are driving and there isno implication that drivers cannot keep the cell phone on in order to get intouch with others when the emergences happen. Thus, the assumption about thelaw is about to restrict freedom of drivers in view of emergences is notfounded.

To sum up, the argument is indeed logicalunsound with the existing evidence and the flawed assumption about cell phoneand other activities in the road. To better assess it, the argument shouldpresent clear evidence that (1) whether the percentage of drivers who usingcell phone to cause accidents is smaller than any other activities; (2) whetherthe other activities can cause problems in the road and there are requirementsto pass another law to restrict these activities when drivers are in the road.

[ 本帖最后由 longxu 于 2007-3-3 18:20 编辑 ]

kito9695UID: 209685

发帖格式错误~请自己动手修改
参考置顶关于格式的帖子