Argument18 【Chasing For "6" Score】第一次作业

loudUID: 2387861

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       521                           time                60min

In this argument, the author recommend Prunty County(P) to widen and resurface the roads rather than lower its speed limit, since the accident rate only decreased slightly after the new speed limit. Moreover, to support his viewpoint, the author cites Butler County(B) as an example. The accident situation in B was improved dramatically since they adopted the similar means. However, this argument is unconvincing for several flaws.

First, based on the information in this argument, it is hard to demonstrate the new limit is invalid to decrease the accident rate. On the one hand, the reason that most drivers are exceeding the new limit is not necessary to indicate that the new limit is useless. It only reveals that we should endeavor to make drivers abide to the limit rather than restore 55mph. If the limit was restored, but drivers still ignore the limit, should we advance the limit again? So more efforts should be made to help drivers comply to the new limit. It is possible that if all drivers abided to the new limit, the accident rate will decrease. On the other hand, it is perhaps that lowering the limit will play its role in some time later but not be valid right now. It is normal that policies will be effective after some time. When drivers are used to it, the accident rate will maybe decrease gradually.

Second, there is no enough evidence to support that the method which is effectual in B will also be valid in P. More information about B and P should be provided. It is possible that the roads in B was narrow and not flat enough before, the way to improve the width and surface is normally to be valid. However, if the conditions of roads in P are good enough, it is hardly to be effective again. Moreover, there is no information to reveal that the accident in B is less than P. If it has more accidents actually, its experience is surely invalid to be adopted.

Third, the author fails to substantiate that there is a close relation between the improvement of accident rate in B and the change of the width and surface of roads. Little evidence is shown that there are no other policies adopted by B before. Maybe more other ways were adopted at the same time and lead to the improvement of accident rate. If it is true, the recommendation in this argument is hardly to believe. Another possibility is that the traffic in B changed drastically in five years ago. Some other district may take place of B to become the traffic center and the cars in B decrease a lot. If so, the policies adopted by B can not be so effective as the author acclaims.

To sum up, the conclusion that new speed limit is invalid is not supported well in this argument. And lacking of enough information about B and P, its recommendation based on B’s experience is also insubstantial. If the author wants to convince us, he should provide more evidence and information about the traffic situation in B and P.

木之灵景UID: 2427667

In this argument, the author recommend Prunty County (P) to widen and resurface the roads rather than lower its speed limit, since the accident rate only decreased slightly after the new speed limit. Moreover, to support his viewpoint, the author cites Butler County (B) as an example. The accident situation in B was improved dramatically since they adopted the similar means. However, this argument is unconvincing for several flaws. 开头很好，简洁有力

First, based on the information in this argument, it is hard to demonstrate the new limit is invalid to decrease the accident rate. On the one hand On one hand, the reason that most drivers are exceeding the new limit is not necessary to indicate that the new limit is useless. It only reveals that we should endeavor to make drivers abide to the limit rather than restore 55mph. we should 是不是有些强加了自己的主观观点进来 If the limit was restored, but drivers still ignore the limit, should we advance the limit again? So more efforts should be made to on help drivers comply to with the new limit. It is possible that if all drivers abided to the new limit, the accident rate will decrease. On the other hand, it is perhaps that lowering the limit will play its role in some time later but not be valid right now. It is normal that policies will be effective after some time. When drivers are used to it, the accident rate will maybe decrease gradually. 这里总觉得有些发表自己的看法的感觉,我觉得最好不要加进来类似与we should do something之类的句子

Second, there is no enough evidence to support that the method which is effectual in B will also be valid in P. More information about B and P should be provided. It is possible that the roads in B was narrow and not flat enough before, the way to improve the width and surface is normally to be valid. However, if the conditions of roads in P are good enough, it is hardly to be effective again. Moreover, there is no information to reveal that the accident in B is less than P. If it has more accidents actually, its experience is surely invalid to be adopted.

Third, the author fails to substantiate that there is a close relation between the improvement of accident rate in B and the change of the width and surface of roads. Little evidence is shown that there are no other policies adopted by B before. Maybe more other ways were adopted at the same time and lead to the improvement of accident rate. If it is true, the recommendation in this argument is hardly to believe. Another possibility is that the traffic in B changed drastically in five years ago. Some other district may take place of B to become the traffic center and the cars in B decrease a lot. If so, the policies adopted by B can not be so as effective as the author acclaims. 这段写的很好

To sum up, the conclusion that new speed limit is invalid is not supported well in this argument. And lacking of enough information about B and P, its recommendation based on B’s experience is also insubstantial. If the author wants to convince us, he should provide more evidence and information about the traffic situation in B and P. 总觉一下，觉得你的argument真的写的不错，尤其是你的用词和造句，呵呵我觉得很好，不过我的水平一般有些地方可能改的也不是很对，希望谅解