argument18 永不言弃互改小组 by 9#

cameo0320UID: 2599448

OPIC: 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."


In the argument, the author recommends that Prunty County(PC)should restore the 55 mph limit and improve its roads. To support the recommendation the author point out that the accident rate throughout PC has decreased only slightly. The author also cites the fact that in nearby Butler County, which has increased lane widths and resurfacing rough roads and still have a 55mph speed limit, yet the accident rate in there decreased 25 percent. However, close scrutiny of each of these facts, reveals that none of them lead credible support to the recommendation.

To begin with, the author assumes that the 55 mph limit has on effect on decreasing the accident rate. However, it is not the case. PC only “recently” reduced its speed limit, and only perform the policy in some major road. It is not a long time enough to justify whether it is effective. Besides, it is possible that during that time, people in PC must enhance their speed in order to finish the extra work burden. Or it is entirely possible that a lot of people did not know the policy due to it is a new one. Without ruling out these explanations, the author cannot draw any conclusion that the 55 mph limit has no use.

Secondly, the argument rest on the assumption that PC is analogous to BC in all respects. The common sense tells us it is not the case. For one thing, the author fails to provide any information to prove that the road improvement project in BC is the only reason of the low accident rate. For another, even if the project is effective in BC it is cannot apply to PC simply. It is possible that the road conditions of the two places are very different, or may be the roads in PC are very good not need to be improved. Thus, lacking reliable evidence about the two areas’ roads condition and the causes of the low rate in BC, the recommendation is unbelievable.

In addition, the experience of five years ago is unreliable to draw any conclusion about nowadays. It is useful in five years ago does not mean that it will also effective in today. As the argument lack these information about the two areas, this argument is unwarranted.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis do not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more evidence concerning the real effect of the policy and the conditions of the two different areas. To better evaluate the argument , we would need more information about the project in PC.

stgzhaoUID: 2583165

In the argument, the author recommends that Prunty County(PC)should restore the 55 mph limit and improve its roads. To support the recommendation the author point out that the accident rate throughout PC has decreased only slightly. The author also cites the fact that in nearby Butler County, which has increased lane widths and resurfacing rough roads and still have a 55mph speed limit, yet the accident rate in there decreased 25 percent. However, close scrutiny of each of these facts, reveals that none of them leads credible support to the recommendation. To begin with, the author assumes that the 55 mph limit has on effect on decreasing the accident rate. However, it is not the case. PC only “recently” reduced its speed limit, and only perform the policy in some major road. It is not a long time enough to justify whether it is effective. Besides, it is possible that during that time, people in PC must enhance their speed in order to finish the extra work burden.（这种类型的想象是不是合适啊） Or it is entirely possible that a lot of people did not know the policy due to it is a new one. Without ruling out these explanations, the author cannot draw any conclusion that the 55 mph limit has no use. Secondly, the argument rest on the assumption that PC is analogous to BC in all respects. The common sense tells us it is not the case. For one thing, the author fails to provide any information to prove that the road improvement project in BC is the only reason of the low accident rate. For another, even if the project is effective in BC it is cannot apply to PC simply. It is possible that the road conditions of the two places are very different, or may be the roads in PC are very good not need to be improved. Thus, lacking reliable evidence about the two areas’ roads condition and the causes of the low rate in BC, the recommendation is unbelievable. 可以有其他的原因比如居民的驾驶技术等等 In addition, the experience of five years ago is unreliable to draw any conclusion about nowadays. It is useful in five years ago does not mean that it will also effective in today. As the argument lack these information about the two areas, this argument is unwarranted. 这一条为啥不再详细点？ To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis do not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more evidence concerning the real effect of the policy and the conditions of the two different areas. To better evaluate the argument , we would need more information about the project in PC.