Argument17

PrudenceUID: 2286952

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

"Some states are creating new laws that restrict the use of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles. Such legislation, however, is sheer folly. Although some people with cell phones undoubtedly cause problems on the road, including serious accidents, the majority do not. Besides, problems are also caused by drivers who are distracted by any number of other activities, from listening to the radio to disciplining children. Since there is no need to pass legislation restricting these and other such activities, it follows that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient-or helpful in emergencies."
WORDS: 405          TIME: 0:50:06          DATE: 2007-3-28

The arguer asserts that legislation about restrict the use of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles is of no need. Also the arguer provides three evidences: (1) the majority with cell phones do not cause problems; (2) listening to the radio and disciplining children also cause accidents yet not be restricted; (3) phones are convenient and helpful in emergencies. However, scrutiny examination of this argument reveals that the arguer's assertion is presumptuous, and joking at people's invaluable lives.

To begin with, the arguer fails to place enough emphasis on the accidents caused by people who are using handheld cell phones when they are driving. At first, the arguer should provide more detail about how many people using phones when they are driving, and of which how many actual lead to accidents, which is the key for the states and us to consider whether to restrict this deed or not. Although people having accidents is only a small proportion of those who have phone, and if people who have phones but do not use them when they are driving are excluded from being taken into account, maybe now the proportion of people involving in accidents with those who are using phones when drive would be much higher, and deserves states and us attention. Furthermore, if more than one serious car accident caused by phones results in 20 persons losing lives, again, query whether this deed of people using phones when drive should not be restricted.

In the second, it is presumptuous for the arguer to get the conclusion that there is no need to restrict people to use phones when drive, by compare using phones with listening to the radio and disciplining children. Admittedly, if listening to the radio and disciplining children have caused accidents, of which some are serious ones, both of these should be restricted, which is right attitude towards lives. However, no comparison needed, only concerning the number of the accidents and people injured or even death caused by people who using phone when drive alone is enough for the states to take measures to restrict this deed.

Last but not least stands a ridiculous contention that restriction is unnecessary because phones are of great help towards emergencies. Admittedly, handheld cell phones have advantage in getting people help when face emergencies. Is there, however, any relationship existing between the importance of using phones to get help and driving a car? Do the drivers, again, using phones and leading to car accidents use phones because of emergencies? Without providing such details, the arguer makes this assertion unpersuasive at all.

To sum up, it is somewhat merciless for the arguer to claim that no restriction needed to prevent car accidents caused usage of phones by people when drive from happening. Moreover it is better for the arguer to get details of the number of the accidents and people injured or even death caused by people who using phone when drive, and then be circumspect to get a conclusion.

hejingCET4UID: 2308496

没有细看,就你的开头说点建议吧
我刚开始写的开头就是你这样的,结论, 然后一一列出论据.我觉得这样思路比较清楚.
但是后来发现这样有些浪费时间,中间的主要部分没有时间了,显得很单薄.有部分原因是我的速度不够快,不知道 LZ的怎么样.
另外,就是关于这个开头的问题,论坛也是讨论了好一阵子.主要的观点就是ETS不倾向于大家重复 题目

所以,建议你先写出结论,然后写主要的论据,比如调查报告.
当然,是建议,你权衡一下,根据你自己的情况接受吧.

加油!

PrudenceUID: 2286952

我也是这样想的
开头尽量的简单
把时间留给中间的部分
谢谢你啊！
:handshake
什么时候考？
要不要帮你改作文？

hejingCET4UID: 2308496

呵呵.谢谢你哦
不过我 已经考完AW了
祝你好运哦

PrudenceUID: 2286952

那有空多来指导下我啊
我的issue啊！！！
help!!