argument31 -anan

zsa1983UID: 2299564

Argument31 额外题库 第6篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：61分16秒     463 words
从2007年2月28日10时58分到2007年2月28日12时61分
------题目------
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.'
提纲:
1.质疑其他行为与使用手机导致事故的类推关系。
2.质疑使用手机不可能导致事故的逻辑错误
3.质疑从交通事故使用各种便利工具推出任何情况下使用便利工具的合理性

------正文------
The speaker asserts that there is no need to pass legislation restricting these and other such activities, and so there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient- or helpful in emergencies. To support his assertion, the speaker cites the example of new laws created by some states for restrict the use of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles. Besides, the speaker points out that problems are also caused by drivers who are distracted by any number of other activities. However, with such incredible evidence, I would not lend my agreement to the speaker.

To begin with, it is problems caused by drivers who are distracted by any number of activities that do not mean all activities do little bad effect on the traffic accidents. On the contrary, perhaps it shows us that the reasons that cause traffic accidents is complicated and in great numbers. Such as the use of handheld cell phones, listening to the radio, and disciplining children, all of these may causes some problems in some cases. Without considering life and safe as the first important thing than anything else, the assertion should be agreed entirely.

Besides, even these other activities have nothing to do with the problems; the speaker also should not assert that the use of handheld cell phones is the same to these activities in causing the problems. Perhaps the use of handheld cell phones makes the drivers not pay enough attention to the condition of roads, for being interesting in the content of speaking. Lacking convincing evidence, it is also possible that the drivers may forget that they are driving when they hear some important information. In short, with such possibilities, I cannot agree with the speaker.

Moreover, even all of these activities are in no touch with the traffic accidents, still the speaker should not assert that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient to all cases. The cases appreciate in traffic does not mean it will be suitable to any other cases. Obviously, any person should be under some rules. Without any restriction to person's activity, it is extremely possible that the whole world will become crazy. Perhaps people would like to kill someone they hate by using knife or some other device. Of course, it is not allowed.

In the final analysis, the speaker should not assert this issue with so many possible bad affect. The provided evidence does no indication of the assertion. To give a rational analysis, the speaker should first consider the possibility of these factors in doing harm to people, and also should consider whether it is suitable to not restrict people's freedom to use a device in any case.