argument 18 [chasing for 6]

西瓜妹UID: 2452971

18The 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."

date;3月2日

The argument predicts that if Prunty County (PC) undertakes the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County (BC) completed five years ago: increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads, PC will improve the safety of its roads and decrease the rate of accidents, for the reason that, PC's recent method:limit the speed from 55 miles per hour (mph), does not take effect. However, the editorial, in my observation, suffers from three critical fallacies.

First of all, the conclusion assumes that PC will reduce the accident rate by way of BC's road improvement project. In order to support that editorial, author should provide us evidence that the recent road condition in PC is good enough, but it falls to. If the road in PC is wide, straight, and flat, there is no need to improve it any more. Perhaps other factors like poor weather, a more numbers of unskilled drivers and teenage drivers may lead to increase the accident rate in PC. Thus, lacking of logical and convincing evidences, I cannot concede the argument.

Secondly, BC's successful experience might not operate in PC, because the argument does not prove any valid evidences that the two counties' conditions can be indeed comparable. Neither the author does not provide us the evidences of the circumstances which BC faced five years ago, for example, whether the reasons of  accidents in the two place and the road condition of the two place are the same or not, nor the number of accident rate in PC, which may be lower, even if BC's has decreased by 25 percent. Moreover, the experience of five years ago, a bit of long time, may be not applicable recently.

Thirdly, PC's project of safety effort having failed may result from the incomplete and lax abidance by rule rather than the new project itself. In fact, most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit, that is, some drivers abide by the new criterion and the accident rate throughout PC has decreased slightly. Admittedly, the project is effective because it is in the case that few drivers limited their speed at 45 mph that the accident rate has decreased. Perhaps all the drivers reduce the speed at 45 mph, the accident rate will fall down. Thus, PC should pay attention to strengthening the surveillance and ensuring the drivers to abide the new limit.

In sum, the argument fail to provide sufficient evidences to convince me. To strengthen it, the author must consider the influence of all respects such as weather, road condition, and the statistical informations of accident rate.

[ 本帖最后由 西瓜妹 于 2008-3-3 20:08 编辑 ]

xipanlinyuUID: 2300112

The argument predicts that if Prunty County (PC) undertakes the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County (BC) completed five years ago: increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads, PC will improve the safety of its roads and decrease the rate of accidents, for the reason that, PC's recent method:limit the speed from 55 miles per hour (mph), does not take effect. However, the editorial, in my observation, suffers from three critical fallacies.
First of all, the conclusion assumes that PC will reduce the accident rate by way of BC's road improvement project. In order to support that editorial, author should provide us evidence that the recent road condition in PC is good enough, but it falls to. If the road in PC is wide, straight, and flat, there is no need to improve it any more. Perhaps other factors like poor weather, a more numbers of unskilled drivers and teenage drivers may lead to increase the accident rate in PC. Thus, lacking of logical and convincing evidences,前面的分句不能用这种结构，因为主语不一致 I cannot concede the argument.
Secondly, BC's successful experience might not operate in PC, because the argument does not prove any valid evidences that the two counties' conditions can be indeed comparable. Neither the author does not provide us the evidences of the circumstances which BC faced five years ago, for example, whether the reasons of  accidents in the two place and the road condition of the two place are the same or not, 路况应该也属于引起事故的一个原因吧nor the number of accident rate in PC, which may be lower, even if BC's has decreased by 25 percent. Moreover, the experience of five years ago, a bit of long time, may be not applicable recently.
这段最好多列举些他因吧，具体些。这段不是很有力
我没太理清楚你这段与上段的逻辑是怎么样的。我感觉主线的攻击大概是这样：BC真的事故减少了吗？即使事故减少了，不一定是修路导致的，即使是修路导致的，不一定能推到PC这儿，因为PC的路不一定差，即使差也不一定是导致他们事故的主要原因，还可能有其它原因blablabla
Thirdly, PC's project of safety effort having failed may result from the incomplete and lax abidance by rule rather than the new project itself. In fact, most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit, that is, some drivers abide by the new criterion and the accident rate throughout PC has decreased slightly. Admittedly, the project is effective because it is in the case that few drivers limited their speed at 45 mph that the accident rate has decreased. Perhaps all the drivers reduce the speed at 45 mph, the accident rate will fall down这句用虚拟会不会好点？. Thus, PC should pay attention to strengthening the surveillance and ensuring the drivers to abide the new limit.
In sum, the argument fail to provide sufficient evidences to convince me. To strengthen it, the author must consider the influence of all respects such as weather, road condition, and the statistical informations of accident rate.
关于Argu，我也是才刚刚开始准备，也不太清楚写法，所以如果意见不好，你也别太在意啊