argument18【FF小组】 by duyuan3377 第六次模考

duyuan3377UID: 2415765

TOPIC: ARGUMENT18 - 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: 410          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-12-11 12:28:18

In the argument, the arguer draws a conclusion that the 55 mph limit should be restored because the safety effort has failed. The argument is mainly based on evidence that most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and that the accident rate has decreased only slightly. And he recommends that Prunty County should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project like Butler County. Although the argument sounds quite reasonable at first thought, yet a series of logical flaws might undermine the argument and the recommendation.

First of all, the arguer unfairly assumes that the fact of most drivers exceeding the speed limit and of the slight decrease of accident rate can sufficiently demonstrate that this safety effort has failed. However, there is no guarantee that this is the case, nor the arguer does provide any evidence to substantiate the assumption. Firstly, why are most drivers exceeding the new speed limit? It is not because the limit is not effective, but because most drivers are not aware of the importance of safety, or because corresponding punishment rules are not effective. Besides, the slight decrease of accident rate also cannot prove that the limit has failed. It is possible that most accidents might happen on rural roads rather than on major county roads, because this speed limit is only applied on all major county roads. So the accident rate on major county roads might decrease considerately. Without considering and ruling out above mentioned and other possibilities, the arguer cannot conclude that the speed limit has failed.


In addition, the arguer commits a fallacy of "false analogy" between the two counties. The arguer simply assumes that the project conducted by Butler County is applicable to Prunty County, but he does not provide any evidence that these two counties are comparable. It is entirely possible that differences between the two counties outweigh the similarities. Thus, the arguer cannot rely on this false analogy to support his recommendation.

Last but not least, even if the recommendation is effective, are there any other measures, which can be used to improve highway safety or is it possible to combine the road improvement project with the speed limit together.

In sum, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the argument. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to prove that the safety effort really has failed and to provide more information about the Butler County.

[ 本帖最后由 duyuan3377 于 2008-12-11 12:39 编辑 ]