对于官方范文的质疑argument篇

snowocoUID: 2649368

1、首先，我真的没找到过ets的官方范文，所有的范文都是大家整理出来的，但没有人给出过从哪里整理来的。还请大牛指点，莫非是参加scoreitnow这个项目之后ets额外附送的？
2、对这篇范文
“Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.”

The agrument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.

However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely. It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford. In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of the two different areas. Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are more likely to occur. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. Elmsford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.

A six-month period is not a particularly long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area. It is mentioned in the argument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. Again, the demographics of the population are important. It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. Are there more people in Forestville than there were sic months ago? If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limits. Also in reference to the activities of the population, it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight. Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsford residents may not have been forced to do so.

Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmsford.
我始终觉得这篇文章写得很牵强，在我看来这篇文章甚至已经有跑偏之嫌，题目中是比较的在实行了新的速度限制政策后F市的交通事故在六个月之内上升了而E市未改变下降了，而范文虽然在攻击的时候说可能有其他的原因导致了交通事故的上升，但是问题就在于这些原因并没有体现出为什么会导致在这6个月中事故率上升，而仅仅可以拿来解释事故率为什么会高，而不是为什么会增高。第二段最后一句也明确的说可能E地交通环境过好以至于交通事故发生概率较低。注意，是较低，而不是下降，题目中根本没有比较过两地那边发生事故率高，仅仅比较的是两边的变化情况。第三段在论证的时候，同样犯了这样的错误，例如However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the roads. Again, the demographics of the population are important. It is possible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. 仅仅比较了两地的情况，而并未论证这些情况是否会导致变化，从这些情况中，我们最多能推出F比E更可能发生交通事故。
小弟初次发贴，烦请不吝赐教

jjqqqssUID: 2733301

我也有同样的疑惑！
也是觉得这篇文章提出的其他影响交通事故发生率的因素和过去六个月事故发生率的变化确实没什么关系。
除了第三段开头所说的样本因素，其他的因素和这6个月的事故率上升很难联系到一起。
因此看完全文感觉和题目搭不上边。

望牛人解答下！

comorainUID: 192455

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=985960&highlight=

jjqqqssUID: 2733301

:p多谢LS的，

wl851112UID: 2516029

有一个疑问：
就算文中没有提到E条件优于F，但是这个因素应该可以作为猜测事故率下降的原因之一啊。
难道不就应该全面考虑可能造成结果的原因么？即使是文中作者没有想到的。
可以解释作者逻辑性的不全面不就可以了么？

sandyslmUID: 2768248

同感 但是有牛人过问此事了哈 请看https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=985960&highlight=