argument31 by leader2050 年夜饭前那篇的回复,原文被锁了,新发一贴

irvine666UID: 2575525

原贴见https://bbs.gter.net/thread-912177-1-1.html 改好才发现被锁了,CRYING~~
鄙人斗胆发个新贴了,斑斑不要ban我

In this argument, the editor concludes that the people’s freedom to use cell phones should not be restricted. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the majority of people would not cause problems on the road with cell phones. Also he claims that instead of using cell phones, drivers’ other distracting activities would still cause problems. Close scrutiny of the facts, however, reveals they(这个they会让别人以为是facts) suffer critical flaws.(开头没有”明确”的提出你自己的观点,复述稍显过度)

To begin with, the arguer’s sweeping claim that the majority of drivers would not cause traffic problems when using cell phones. Yet the argument offers no evidence about the number of overall traffic accidents and the number of those which caused by using cell phones. (这里提到no evidence, 首先这个说法并不严谨,任何论证你都可以说它no evidence或者lack of evidence,这是一个很滑头的讲法,在哪儿都能用.如何丰富它?你需要提供详细的证据和论述证明确实是no evidence才行,而非一句话就真的否定了.)Lacking evidence about the proportion of the accidents caused by using cell phones,(lack evidence一样的同上) the arguer cannot convincingly draw any conclusion on the basis of them that most of people would not have accidents on the use of cell phones.

Even assuming (that不能省) few accidents (are) caused by using cell phones, the arguer unfairly assumes(两个assume用的太近,用illustrates或者points out换掉) that laws to restrict the use of handheld cell phones are unnecessary. (这里最好能加一个过渡句,比如: A myriad of other possibilities must be taken in to consideration 自然些)It is entirely possible that rare cases caused by cell phones are extremely fatal which engender huge amounts of loss on people’s lives and properties. If in this case, creating laws to restrict the use of handheld cell phones by drivers is inevitably obligatory.

Thirdly, the arguer further assumes that the use of cell phones should not be forbidden since other factors would still cause traffic accidents. By concluding this fact, the arguer assumes that the distracted(这个词有强烈的主观色彩,用在这里不恰当) effect made by using cell phones is tantamount to the effect of other activities. However, no evidence is offered to substantiate the assumption. Perhaps other activities such as listening to the radio and disciplining children could distract drivers finitely little, and the use of handheld cell phones would cost far more attentions from drivers.(这里就比较好,no evidence后接perhaps) Or the frequency of using cell phones is terribly higher than other activities, and it would result in much more dangerous casualty than other activities. (本段论述比较充分.)

Finally, even if the arguer can substantiate all forgoing(这个词这里啥意思) assumptions, the arguer’s assertion that those states which are creating new laws to prohibit the use of handheld cell phones is sheer folly. It is likely that accidents caused by the use of cell phone are especially excessive and fatal, so actions must be taken to reverse the current condition. (这里就一个possibility吧,那后文怎么跑出的possibilities?)Without ruling out other possibilities about the condition of those states, the editor(author吧,这篇argu不是editor写的) cannot convince me that it is folly to make new laws that restrict the use of cell phones.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion, the editor should provide more evidence to prove most of drivers would not make accidents when using cell phones. To better assess the conclusion, I want to know more information about whole condition of the traffic accidents in the country.(argu的结尾实在是没改头,千篇一律还不能算错…)

总结: 2个问题, 第一个就是用词和句式过于单调,整篇出现了不下5个assume或者其衍生词.
第二个就是前面提到的,no evidence前面的过渡和后面的深入论证还需要丰富一下.

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

帖子被锁是因为发帖格式错了
自己改过来之后我们就会给你解锁的

irvine666UID: 2575525

may be I haven't made it clear...
我本来准备帮人改,顺便抢红包,结果在word改好,准备发回复了才发现,那个已经被锁定了,只好厚颜发到这里来.

naningooUID: 2594658

:victory:专业撬锁，开锁，有意咨询８８８８８８

naningooUID: 2594658

Even assuming (that不能省) few accidents (are) caused by using cell phones, the arguer unfairly assumes(两个assume用的太近,用illustrates或者points out换掉) that laws to restrict the use of handheld cell phones are unnecessary. (这里最好能加一个过渡句,比如: A myriad of other possibilities must be taken in to consideration 自然些)It is entirely possible that rare cases caused by cell phones are extremely fatal which engender huge amounts of loss on people’s lives and properties. If in this case, creating laws to restrict the use of handheld cell phones by drivers is inevitably obligatory. 不可避免地必要？
跟进．．哈哈．楼主和我一样paticular.If this is the case  inevitably用indisputably换看看会不会意思好一些呢（不可争议的必要）

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

汗 太particular了

等我明天统一发红包啦

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

LSS的头像有当年无夏JJ的头像的风采
喜欢
赞

irvine666UID: 2575525

朦胧美?

leader2050UID: 2591145

我把格式改了，谢谢irvine666，等我睡醒了在修改文章。
牛年快乐

leader2050UID: 2591145

1# irvine666
In this argument, the editor concludes that the people’s freedom to use cell phones should not be restricted. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the majority of people would not cause problems on the road with cell phones. Also he claims that instead of using cell phones, drivers’ other distracting activities would still cause problems. Close scrutiny of the facts, however, the argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

To begin with, the arguer’s sweeping claim that the majority of drivers would not cause traffic problems when using cell phones. Yet the argument offers no scientific survey about the number of overall traffic accidents and the number of those which caused by using cell phones. Perhaps the proportion of those accidents is just the highest in the whole of traffic accidents, or the proportion of those accidents is similar to the proportion of others. In either event, the arguer cannot convincingly draw any conclusion on the basis of them that most of people would not have accidents on the use of cell phones.

Even assuming that few accidents are caused by using cell phones, the arguer unfairly demonstrates that laws to restrict the use of handheld cell phones are unnecessary. A myriad of other possibilities must be taken in to consideration. It is entirely possible that rare cases caused by cell phones are extremely fatal which engender huge amounts of loss on people’s lives and properties. If in this case, creating laws to restrict the use of handheld cell phones by drivers is inevitably obligatory.

Thirdly, the arguer further assumes that the use of cell phones should not be forbidden since other factors would still cause traffic accidents. By concluding this fact, the arguer assumes that the negative effects made by using cell phones is tantamount to the effect of other activities. However, no evidence is offered to substantiate the assumption. Perhaps other activities such as listening to the radio and disciplining children could distract drivers finitely little, and the use of handheld cell phones would cost far more attentions from drivers.(这里就比较好,no evidence后接perhaps) Or the frequency of using cell phones is terribly higher than other activities, and it would result in much more dangerous casualty than other activities. (本段论述比较充分.)

Finally, even if the arguer can substantiate all foregoing assumptions, the arguer’s assertion that those states which are creating new laws to prohibit the use of handheld cell phones is sheer folly. It is likely that accidents caused by the use of cell phone are especially excessive and fatal, so actions must be taken to reverse the current condition.  Without ruling out this possible scenario, the author cannot convince me that it is folly to make new laws that restrict the use of cell phones.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion, the editor should provide more evidence to prove most of drivers would not make accidents when using cell phones. To better assess the conclusion, I want to know more information about whole condition of the traffic accidents in the country.(argu的结尾实在是没改头,千篇一律还不能算错…)