Argument103 【07-10G Superstar大帖】27日模考，by gyyx

gyyxUID: 2290150

TOPIC: ARGUMENT103 - Blue City Highway had always been notorious for its tight curves and poor roadway visibility, and the accident rate there was generally very high. Last year the highway was redesigned to broaden the curves and improve roadway visibility. Drivers report that they now feel much safer driving on the highway and that the redesign has been a big improvement. But the number of accidents on the highway has not been significantly lower in the six months since the redesign than it was in the six months before the redesign. Therefore, the redesign clearly did not improve the curves and roadway visibility enough to make a difference.
WORDS: 367          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-27 15:05:13

In this argument, the author deny the visibility improvement that the redesign brings, as the accident rate is not significantly decreased in six months, although drivers report they feel much safer driving on the highway. The argument fall some logical fallacies and false analysis.

The most important evidence to support this argument is the accident rate is not significantly lower, however, there is other explanations for this situation other than the curves and road visibility. For example, it may be drivers' carelessness, that is, as the way become much less curve and higher visibility, they become more careless when driving, so cause more accidents.
This assumption could resort the reports that drivers feel much safer now as evidence. Or perhaps, after the redesign, the way better to drive in, and there is more cars in Blue City Highway, however, unfortunately, contribute to the accident rate. Without ruling out these possible explanations, the author's argument is unconvincing.

Another weak point in this argument is that six months as a frame may be too few to identify the change in accident rate. Maybe the rate is deceasing now, but not significantly, and it will make more deceasing in future, as more and more drivers adapt to the new road. Maybe in one year it will significantly decrease. All maybe the rate chooses to be compared with is not the same time of one year, the climate and the number of cars should be taken into consideration. Maybe the six month before redesign is a season with less rain, while the six month after redesign is a season more rain. This climate factor may cause much abnormity in the rate. Lack of details about the rate compared, we could not judge this argument better.

Finally, as accident rate is a complex problem involving many factors such as drivers, climate, and highway situation. So basing on mere fact the accident rate not significantly lower is not enough to assess the redesign, thus this argument ignoring some important factors. To better access a redesign engineer, the accident rate is only one side, more feedback from the drivers, and more study into the road situation in order to get some statistics to evaluate.

njuzhshaoUID: 2258118

In this argument, the author deny the visibility improvement that the redesign brings, as the accident rate is not significantly decreased in six months, although drivers report they feel much safer driving on the highway. The argument fall some logical fallacies and false analysis.
The most important[好,马上就取消了平铺直叙的感觉] evidence to support this argument is [the fact that ] accident rate is not significantly lower, however, there is other explanations for this situation other[两个other了,最好避免在一句里这样用吧] than the curves and road visibility. For example, it may be drivers' carelessness, that is, as the way become much less curve and higher visibility, they become more careless when driving, so cause more accidents. This assumption could resort [to] the reports that drivers feel much safer now as evidence. Or perhaps, after the redesign, the way better to [better to ?]drive in, and there is [are] more cars in Blue City Highway, however, unfortunately, contribute to the accident rate. Without ruling out these possible explanations, the author's argument is unconvincing.
Another weak point in this argument is that six months as a frame may be too few [short] to identify the change in accident rate. Maybe the rate is deceasing now, but not significantly, and it will make more deceasing in future, as more and more drivers adapt[这个adapt一提出，整句就合理了，没有这一点说明略显牵强，赞] to the new road. Maybe in one year it will significantly decrease[凑字数的？]. All maybe the rate chooses to be compared with is not the same time of one year, the climate and the number of cars should be taken into consideration. Maybe the six month before redesign is a season with less rain, while the six month after redesign is a season more rain. This climate factor may cause much abnormity in the rate. Lack of details about the rate compared, we could not judge this argument better.
Finally, as accident rate is a complex problem involving many factors such as drivers, climate, and highway situation. So basing on mere fact the accident rate not significantly lower is not enough to assess the redesign, thus this argument ignoring some important factors. To better access a redesign engineer, the accident rate is only one side, more feedback from the drivers, and more study into the road situation in order to get some statistics to evaluate.
[看了一遍只改出了点零星的语法错误，gyyx的Argument水平已经有水准了，不错不错。赞。]