Argument18 【METTLE小组】第一次作业

amyzhaoUID: 2250810

Arguement18
The following appeared in an editorial in a Prunty County newspaper.

"In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from 55 miles per hour to 45 on all major county roads. But the 55 mph limit should be restored, because this safety effort has failed. Most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly. If we want to improve the safety of our roads, we should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than there were five years ago."


In this argument, the argue claims that Prunty County (PC) should restore its speed limit of 55 mph and instead take the same road improvement project, just as BC did five yeas ago. To substantiate this claim, the arguer makes an assumption that the methods to improve highway safety PC took are failed and provides evidence of Buter County (BC). However, the argument suffers several fallacies, which renders it unacceptable.

First of all, the assumption that PC failed to improve highway safety is dubious. For one thing, though the accident rate throughout BC has decreased only slightly, the conclusion that the safety effort has failed is still untenable because of the scarcity of statistical information about the accident rate of major roads. Maybe the accidents rate of major roads which the new rules carried on has decreased while in other minor roads it has increased. For another, that most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit does not mean the effort is ineffective. Other factors may result in this case. It is highly possible that, as it is a new rule which has not been well publicized, a lot of drivers have not known about it so they just break the rule unintentionally.

Secondly, the causal relationship between the road improvement project done 5 years ago and fewer accidents this past year is open to doubt. During past 5 years, all things remain the same is impossible. Many factors may affect the accidents rate. For instance, more roads have bean built and more rational traffic regulation has been made. Both of them could be helpful to reduce the accident rate. In addition, it is just as likely that, with the publicity of carefully driving, in BC, drivers become more cautious than before. So it is unfounded to assert that the decrease of accident rate is only because the project.

Finally, the arguer makes a unwarranted assumption based on false analogy. Even if I were to concede that the project truly caused the decline of accidents in BC, it is also presumptuous to judge that the same goes in PC as well. The assumption is persuasive only on condition that the situation of PC is as well as BC. Unfortunately, little evidence has served to support that. Moreover, lots of other factors may increase the rate. For example, high traffic density, lack of strict law enforcement measures and careless driving of the local people, which maybe mostly exit in PC but absent in BC. Accordingly, a same project hardly leads to a similar effect to different county.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. We can not accept it until the arguer gives enough evidence and rules out all the possibilities mentioned above.

[ 本帖最后由 amyzhao 于 2007-5-30 19:47 编辑 ]

amyzhaoUID: 2250810

第一次写,只能写出这种东西了,欢迎各位拍砖

秋千UID: 2317735

In this argument, the argue (少个r) claims that Prunty County (PC) should restore its speed limit of 55 mph and instead take the same road improvement project, just as BC did five yeas ago. To substantiate this claim, the arguer makes an assumption that the methods to improve highway safety PC took are failed and provides evidence of Buter（Butler呵呵我打了好多遍呢） County (BC). However, the argument suffers several fallacies, which renders it unacceptable.（大家都差不多呵呵，不过我当时都没看出来到底什么是assumption，你写的不错）
First of all, the assumption that PC failed to improve highway safety is dubious. For one thing, though the accident rate throughout BC has decreased only slightly, the conclusion that the safety effort has failed is still untenable because of the scarcity of statistical information about the accident rate of major roads. Maybe the accidents rate of major roads which（where） the new rules carried onhas decreased while in other minor roads it has increased. For another, that most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit does not mean the effort is ineffective. Other factors may result in this case. It is highly possible that, as it is a new rule which has not been well publicized, a lot of drivers have not known (没必要用完成时吧，may do not know )about it so they just break the rule unintentionally.

Secondly, the causal relationship between the road improvement project done 5 years ago and fewer accidents this past year is open to doubt. During （the）past 5 years, all things remain the same is impossible（太绝对了，而且语序调过来应该会好些）. Many factors may affect the accidents（不要s） rate. For instance, more roads have bean（been） built and more rational traffic regulation has been made. Both of them could be helpful to reduce the accident rate. In addition, it is just as likely that, with the publicity of carefully driving, in BC, drivers become more cautious than before. （这个in addition 的内容和前面是一个意思，似乎不该用in addition，而且前句总结也适用这一句。）So it is unfounded to assert that the decrease of accident rate is only because （of）the project.

Finally, the arguer makes a（an） unwarranted assumption based on（a） false analogy. Even if I were to concede that the project truly caused the decline of accidents in BC, it is also presumptuous to judge that the same goes in PC as well.（好啊） The assumption is persuasive only on condition that the situation of PC is as well as BC. Unfortunately, little evidence has（been）served to support that. Moreover, lots of other factors may increase the rate. For example, high traffic density, lack of strict law enforcement measures and careless driving of the local people（for example 后面应该是句子吧，加短语可以么？不如用such as好了）,which maybe mostly exit（exist？） in PC but absent in BC. Accordingly, a same project hardly leads to a similar effect to （a）different county.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. We can not accept it until the arguer gives enough evidence and rules out all the possibilities mentioned above.

第一次改作文，发觉比自己写一篇也省不了多少劲……也不知道从结构框架上该怎么改，觉得大家思路都差不多呵呵。只是从小地方改了改，大家互相学习吧。

amyzhaoUID: 2250810

呵呵,秋千辛苦了.谢谢指出这么多错误,我说我基础不好喽.我回去会好好看看的,争取下回少些基本的错误