Argument18 【METTLE小组】第一次作业 by happyhappypig

happyhappypigUID: 2342810

Argument 18
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."

Words 581

The above suggestion to retain 55 mph speed limit in Prunty County (P) and improve road conditions as the case in Butler County (B) is not cogent and lacks credibility. Closer scrutiny could reveal several logical fallacies such as mistaking the correlation as a causal relationship and committing false analogy as illustrated below.

First of all, whether the result of less accidents happening B is due to their road improvement projects is open to doubt. The arguer mistakes the correlation between the improvement of road conditions and the decreased reported accidents as a causal relationship. Whether the traffic tragedies are decreasing in B indeed is suspected in the first place. The evidence cited in the argument only indicates the decreased number of reported accidents. Whether there are any un-reported accidents, what percentage are the un-reported ones and how severe these accidents are cannot be neglected. Additionally, myriads of variables take account the occurrence of traffic accidents in addition to the condition of roads and speed limit, such as the geographic terrain of the roads, whether it contains steep inclines or declines, the strength of traffic regulation, whether there are severe punishments for those breaking the rules, the degree of people’s attention, whether the society condemn those causing accidents instead of indifferent, etc. Without detail information on the above related subjects, hardly can we make any conclusion that roads improvement is the primary cause of their safer traffic.

Secondly, even if we concede that the improvement projects do reduce the accidents in B, whether the same succeed could be applied in P is unwarranted. The arguer makes a false analogy without providing information of the two counties such as existing roads surface conditions, residents’ population, usage of the roads, percentage of passing by traffic, or people’s satisfaction of the traffic of these two counties. If B is located on a plain with most of its roads flat whereas P is situated in the mountain areas full of devious roads, the speed limit satisfied B might be dangerous for P. If the main economy support for B is its leisure resorts with most of drivers observance the rules well whereas P has a large population of young people who are zealous about car racing, the improvement of road condition may even exacerbate the condition. It is also possible that B has already updated its roads with additional lanes and improved surface. Unless finding out the reasons causing accidents, any amendment upon traffic regulation is too hasty.

Moreover, the claim asserted that 45 mph fails to improve safety condition is unconvincing. The fact that most drivers exceeding the new speed limit doesn’t indicate the ineffectiveness of the regulation. It is likely that people have to take time getting used to the new speed limit, or there maybe plenty of new comers or driving passed drivers don’t notice the new speed limit. Although the accidents rate is only decreased slightly, it is a promising sign for the future improvement. Further more, the effectiveness of the reducing limit speed should be monitored in long term. Without knowing the reasons people exceeding the speed, or the time scale used to judge the new limit, the conclusion is unpersuasive.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands and renders it groundless. Without further discussion about the similarity of P and B, the condition of existing traffic and main reasons for the accidents in B, the restoration of 55 mph speed limit cannot be adopted.

[ 本帖最后由 happyhappypig 于 2007-6-8 19:07 编辑 ]

秋千UID: 2317735

581字！！也太牛了吧……