0910AW argument120 by 玲珑四犯

玲珑四犯UID：2655925

120The following appeared in a health newsletter.
"A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while
bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all
bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that number is nearly 80
percent. Another study, however, suggests that during the same ten-year
period, the number of accidents caused by bicycling has increased 200
percent. These results demonstrate that bicyclists feel safer because they
are wearing helmets and they take more risks as a result. Thus, to reduce
the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents, the government
should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less
on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets."

Grounding on the two studies of wearing helmets and bicycle accidents, speculating that more bicycle accidents happened because the rate of wearing helmets is increasing, and then synthesizing the two hypothesizes, the author accordingly to suggests wearing helmets less and educating people about bicycle safety more. However, these scant evidence and unproven assumptions that he or she uses make the logical reference of this article seem extremely suspicious. The close scrutiny which follows in my essay will reveal how unconvincing it is.

To begin with, it is unconvincing to draw any conclusion based on the statistics which is too vague to be informative. the speaker fails to point out how the study was conducted, who conducted it and who responded. it is possible that the number studied is not representative of the majority of bicyclists and if 5000 subjects were studied, only 100 echoed, then the study does not lend strong support to the speaker’s suppose-----helmets give bicycle riders senses of security which do not exist.

Secondly, the editor’s solution to the problem is rests on the claim that the increase of bicycle accidents is caused by wearing helmets. Nonetheless, the evidence offered is insufficient to support this claim. a mere simultaneous positive co-relationship between accidents and wearing helmets does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. In addition, all other prospective causes of accidents, such as drinking, over-speeding or unqualified riding skills cannot be ruled out. As it stands, the author’s solution to the problem is based upon an over-simplified analysis of the issue.

Thirdly, the author assumes that all kinds of bicycle accidents applies specifically to serious injuries from them. Lacking evidence that serious accidents reflect all kind of bicycle accidents, it is entirely possible that the author ‘s suggestion is not a good way to protect bicyclists from serious injuries but it works on reducing the rate of overall bicycle injuries. For that matter, it is possible that most of the serious injuries involve automotive vehicles, in that only taking the measure of bicycle is powerless. If this is the case, then the author’s claim that helmet wearing is not required would more flagrantly fly in the face of the final result.

Finally, the speaker fails to consider the harm of wearing protection might bring. Admittedly, helmets make people feel safer and this mistaken sense lead to more risk when they are riding. However, on the another hand, more safe senses bring quiet moods to riders and make them feel less nervous and stress. What’s more, the author ignores other benefits of helmets. For example, protecting rider’s head from a heavy injury. It may turns out hat the advantages of wearing helmets far outweigh of the disadvantages. The author’s newsletter lacks a complete analysis of the situation, thus the recommendation cannot be proven seriously.

In summary, the editor has not convinced me of his or her conclusion that helmets is the reason for bicycle accidents and bicyclists should be educated more about safety and less wearing helmets. To bolster this argument, the speaker must present us more trusty information about two studies which is not as vague as before. If the two studies that the author cited have more persuasiveness, if the editor informs us more about bicycle accidents during these ten years, if he or she considered duality of wearing helmets, then this argument will be not what it is now.

irvine666UID：2575525

1# 玲珑四犯

120The following appeared in a health newsletter.
"A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while
bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all
bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that number is nearly 80
percent. Another study, however, suggests that during the same ten-year
period, the number of accidents caused by bicycling has increased 200
percent. These results demonstrate that bicyclists feel safer because they
are wearing helmets and they take more risks as a result. Thus, to reduce
the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents, the government
should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less
on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets."

Grounding on the two studies of wearing helmets and bicycle accidents, speculating that more bicycle accidents happened because the rate of wearing helmets is increasing, and then synthesizing the two hypothesizes, the author accordingly to suggests wearing helmets less and educating people about bicycle safety more. However, these scant evidence and unproven assumptions that he or she uses make the logical reference of this article seem extremely suspicious. The close scrutiny which follows in my essay will reveal how unconvincing it is.

To begin with, it is unconvincing to draw any conclusion based on the statistics which is too vague to be informative. the speaker fails to point out how the study was conducted, who conducted it and who responded(你去质疑这个做什么？谁做了调查，谁是被调查人，跟你所谓的vague statistics根本没有任何关系，你的TS既然提到的是statistics，下文就好好关注数据：那个35%还有那个80%). it is possible that the number studied（上文写的是how,who,who，这里马上跳到了the number，也就是how many，前后没有任何关系，显示出你当时的思维非常混乱。） is not representative of the majority of bicyclists and if 5000 subjects were studied, only 100 echoed, then the study does not lend strong support to the speaker’s suppose-----helmets give bicycle riders senses of security which do not exist.

从这一段可以看得出来，你的A至少有三个非常严重的毛病：
1.论述不详细，不充分，逻辑跳跃大。所谓支持你的TS的论述，只有一个it is possible和if从句引导的它因。论证过程过于单薄。要加强这种论述，应当从更细节的逻辑一步步推理，我们可以看出来你的it is possible从句和你的最后那句then推理的话是有逻辑跳跃的：数据缺乏代表性就能证明do not exist?未免过于极端了。
2.你的驳斥点找的很差：为什么取样少就没有代表性？这个题目的调查，仅仅是讨论的百分比而已。我不知道你学过概率没有，如果样本是随机分布（这才应该是合理的入手点）的话，即使真的5000人当中只选100人，100人有35%和80%,也同样能够证明5000人当中有35%和80%。
3.句子与句子间没有衔接，仔细看你的论证部分的3个句子，每个句子都像是在说与其他两个句子毫不相关的事情（我是指细节上毫不相关，比如那个how,who,who和下句how many的关系），然后把这些每一句单独看起来都似乎不错的句子拼在一起，就成了个大杂烩段落，让读者完全摸不着头脑，搞不懂你到底要说的是个什么东西。

Secondly, the editor’s solution to the problem is rests on the claim that the increase of bicycle accidents is caused by wearing helmets（细节处理不好，仔细读题，不是caused by wearing helmets，而是那种safe feeling,主题句犯这种分析不清的错误很严重。此外，这个主题句仅仅是陈述了一个事实而已，你自己的观点是什么？貌似是claim不能支持solution?那就直说出来啊，比如the author's claim that...can not buttress his/her solution.比你这种弯弯绕，还要读者自己去分析你的意思的主题句好多了。）. Nonetheless, the evidence offered is insufficient to support this claim.（万能句子，任何一篇A都能用，换言之，就是大众型的凑字数废话，有它不多，没它不少，以后文章中完全可以砍掉节省时间到其他地方去） a mere simultaneous positive co-relationship between accidents and wearing helmets does not necessarily prove a causal relationship.（仍然是这个问题，突然的扔这么句话出来，想表达一个什么意思？你仔细读读，这句话完全无法和你的前后文有任何衔接。句子与句子之间，一定不能孤立的论述各自的东西，你写的不是单个的句子，是段落，是文章！即使是在好的句子，胡乱拼凑在一起的后果也不过是让人觉得：这个人思维极其混乱。切记，A考的是逻辑，逻辑衔接胜过一切。） In addition, all other prospective causes of accidents, such as drinking, over-speeding or unqualified riding skills cannot be ruled out.（这个句子，作为它因，你想的没错，但是论证过于简单，你至少少拿出来说清楚了2个东西：1.为什么不能ruled out?你个人认为不能就不能么？它们会造成什么后果？2.这些drinking over-speeding等等情况，对你的TS是如何支持的？同时对作者的结论是如何反对的？它们从什么地方驳斥了作者的话的可信度？） As it stands, the author’s solution to the problem is based upon an over-simplified analysis（A当中要尽量避免如此主观性的说法，会破坏你的说服力） of the issue.

Thirdly, the author assumes that all kinds of bicycle accidents applies specifically to serious injuries from them. Lacking evidence that serious accidents reflect all kind of bicycle accidents（同样可以砍掉，理由同上）, it is entirely possible that the author ‘s suggestion is not a good way to protect（这是什么...这个题目居然能从这个地方入手也算是新鲜事儿了，好吧，继续看下文你的论述能否说服我） bicyclists from serious injuries but it works on reducing the rate of overall bicycle injuries. For that matter, it is possible that most of the serious injuries involve automotive vehicles, in that only taking the measure of bicycle is powerless（这里我想问问你上文的那个suggestion到底指的什么？我又看了2遍题目，能配得上称之为suggestion的，只有 “the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets” 这句话。那么前文你强调的是suggestion不好，后文却又关注于serious injuries产生的其他可能原因。而且前后又开始逻辑混乱了：前文说is not a good way，后文却在大谈特谈involve automotive vehicles。这就类似--举个例子：“我要说服你某个东西不好，但是我举出的论证是其他某一个或几个东西怎么怎么比这个东西好”一样，当然也就没说服力了）. If this is the case, then the author’s claim that helmet wearing is not required would more flagrantly fly in the face of the final result.

Finally, the speaker fails to consider the harm of wearing protection might bring. Admittedly, helmets make people feel safer and this mistaken sense lead to more risk when they are riding. However, on the another hand, more safe senses bring quiet moods to riders and make them feel less nervous and stress.（中国学生的通病，话喜欢说一半，剩下的让读者自己去“意犹未尽”，这个思维方式一定要在A里面彻底抛弃，否则大事休矣.比如这里至少就少掉了: for light-hearted feeling might be propitious to drivers' better performance, the requirement of wearing hamlets perhaps could leads to more beneficial results than detrimental ones. So, before synthesizing all possible influence of one action,  the author's conclusion seems to be somewhat too hasty. 多了这几句话，文章才能显得更有说服力，更丰满。 按照这种思路重新改写这段吧，后面的我先略过了） What’s more, the author ignores other benefits of helmets. For example, protecting rider’s head from a heavy injury. It may turns out hat the advantages of wearing helmets far outweigh of the disadvantages. The author’s newsletter lacks a complete analysis of the situation, thus the recommendation cannot be proven seriously.

In summary, the editor has not convinced me of his or her conclusion that helmets is the reason for bicycle accidents and bicyclists should be educated more about safety and less wearing helmets. To bolster this argument, the speaker must present us more trusty information about two studies which is not as vague as before. If the two studies that the author cited have more persuasiveness, if the editor informs us more about bicycle accidents during these ten years, if he or she considered duality of wearing helmets, then this argument will be not what it is now.（结尾不批，个人习惯）

对于这篇A，有个最关键的批驳点你没有找到：作者的两个study都是用百分比来说明问题的，然而最后说的是出事故的数量提高了2倍。这个推论非常有猫腻。你先自己研究下，如果你想不到，再看后文。

我举个例子，比如10年前全城1000人，按照study算，戴头盔的人350个，不戴头盔的650个，出事的65个。10年后全城100000人，按照第二个study算，戴头盔的80000个，不戴头盔的20000个，出事的65×2=130个，出事率反而大大的下降了，所以你说是带头盔好呢，还是不戴头盔好呢？作者的话当然就不攻自破了。