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

235635736UID: 2404535

The arguer recommend the improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago for Prunty County. To support this recommend the arguer points out that the safety effort tried recently has failed for the reason that most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly, and that the road improvement project of increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads completed five years ago in Butler County has decreased 25 percent of reported accidents. With a complete examination, this argument suffers from several reasoning flaws as it stands.

Firstly, the arguer has made a hasty generation that the safety effort tried by Prunty County recently has failed. Without any direct information about the disfunction of this effort, this claim is unwarranted. Maybe there be no enough time for the complete and fair judgment with respcet of this safety effort has carried out only for a short time. Understandably, the situation is quite disappointing. But with the undergoing and unproved assumption that any other facts may influence the accident rate has been not change in this time, the arguer still do not rule out the possiblity that the enforcement of new speed limits may effect the accident rate. In the situation that almost every driver is exceeding the speed limit, there is no efficacious limit for speed controling.

Secondly, the claim that the road improvement project has resulted to the success in lowing the accident rate in Bulter County are unwarranted and unreasoning. Without considering any other factor may work on the accident rate, the information of the road improvement is too less to a complete evaluation. In another word, the success of controling the accident rate may come from other factors than the road improvement project. With a fully respect to the accident rate, factors including climate, underage dirvers, amount of vehicles, enforcement of regulations, and so on, can make great impact. For a complete and convincing judgment, the arguer should provide a wildly consideration of all factors, as well as the span of time, on which measuring of the decrease of accident rate is based in the contrast of traffic conditons in the two counties.

Thirdly, the arguer does not provide exact information of the traffic improvement in the major roads which has a lower limit. Maybe the maintainance of accident rate is because of the worse situation in the roads no carried out the new limits while a better one in the major roads. Another unreasoning claim appears in the recommendation by the arguer of road improvement. Ignoring underlying differences between traffic condition in Prunty County and the one in Butler County, the arguer are obviously making unconvincing assertion using incomplete informaion.

To sum up, for a reasoned and complete analysis, the arguer should provide more information about the new speed limit, and the road improvement. Additionally, without ruling out other factors and possible situation affecting the accident rate, the aruger uses the unwarranted assumption for the judgment of new speed limit. Otherwise, only the particular comparison of traffic conditions in two counties can be a convincing recommedation.