Argument31 请多指教 给链接必回拍 谢谢

czzbUID：208982

31The following appeared in the editorial section of a newsmagazine. 禁用手机

"Some states are creating new laws that restrict the use of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles. Such legislation, however, is sheer folly. Although some people with cell phones undoubtedly cause problems on the road, including serious accidents, the majority do not. Besides, problems are also caused by drivers who are distracted by any number of other activities, from listening to the radio to disciplining children. Since there is no need to pass legislation restricting these and other such activities, it follows that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient—or helpful in emergencies."


*****************************************************************
还想请教一下：最后一句有什么点可以批驳的吗？there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient—or helpful in emergencies."


*****************************************************************
In this argument, the author claims that the legislations that restrict the use of handled cell phones by drivers of automobiles in some states are unnecessary and folly. However, several critical flaws render the argument invalid and unwarranted.

First, the fact that the majority of drivers with cell phones do not cause accidents does not make the restriction unnecessary. For as is known to all, law functions  as  warning and prevention of the potential crime and delinquency, in this case, minimizing the occurrence of the traffic accidents. Even if there is only a small number of drivers who use cell phones while driving cause accidents, the legislation that restricts the use will be justified.

In addition, admitting that on average the number of drivers who use cell phones and cause traffic tragedies is negligible as the author implies, we can not exclude the possibility that in some states such legislation is needed. Because in some states, the accidents caused by drivers distracted by cell phones are far more than the national average. In other words, the author can not guarantee the general case he stated applies to the "some states" in question.

Finally, the author commits "false analogy" when he cites other activities, such as listening to the radio and disciplining children, which there is no need to be restricted, as evidence for his claim. Nevertheless, using cell phones while driving is distinctive for such activities in nature, which makes restriction on it necessary. For one thing, talking on a phone requires the driver to move his hand from the sheering wheel to hold the phone, which reduces his control over the wheel. For another thing, one can not predict when the phone rings, so it increases the risk of driving. Also, when the driver is talking on the phone, he or she is distracted from driving to a larger extent than, say listening to the radio, for he listens to the radio just for entertainment while he may be talking about something important over the phone. In a word, restriction on the use of the cell phones by drivers may be indispensable though there is no need banning listening to the radio or disciplining children.

To sum up, the author's claim those legislations that restrict the use of handled cell phones by drivers of automobiles in some states are unnecessary and folly is problematic and thus unconvincing. On the contrary, it is entirely possible that such restriction is necessary and crucial for the residents in the states.

AlexandraUID：185174

我帮你改
一会回你贴

AlexandraUID：185174

Argument31 请多指教 给链接必回拍 谢谢

31The following appeared in the editorial section of a newsmagazine. 禁用手机

"Some states are creating new laws that restrict the use of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles. Such legislation, however, is sheer folly. Although some people with cell phones undoubtedly cause problems on the road, including serious accidents, the majority do not. Besides, problems are also caused by drivers who are distracted by any number of other activities, from listening to the radio to disciplining children. Since there is no need to pass legislation restricting these and other such activities, it follows that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient—or helpful in emergencies."


*****************************************************************
还想请教一下：最后一句有什么点可以批驳的吗？there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient—or helpful in emergencies."


*****************************************************************
In this argument, the author claims that the legislations that restrict the use of handled cell phones by drivers of automobiles in some states are unnecessary and folly. However, several critical flaws render the argument invalid [哇，用这种程度的词？] and unwarranted. [我喜欢简短的开头，呵呵]

First, the fact that the majority of drivers with cell phones do not cause accidents does not make the restriction unnecessary. For [For，作为“因为”的意思时，不能用在句首。] as is known to all [感觉还是有问题，know,的用法，我查查先], law functions  as  warning and prevention of the potential crime and delinquency, in this case, minimizing the occurrence of the traffic accidents. Even if there is only a small number of drivers who use cell phones while driving cause accidents, the legislation that restricts the use will be justified.[感觉这么说，不顺。换一下怎样？还有，我个人认为 你这样论，不太好耶。]

In addition, admitting that on average the number of drivers who use cell phones and cause traffic tragedies is negligible [negligible，意为：可忽略，微不足道，无关紧要。 你是不是想说，使用手机跟出事故，没有必然的联系？ 这个词，好象程度上，不够。个人意见哦] as the author implies, we can not exclude the possibility that in some states such legislation is needed. Because in some states, the accidents caused by drivers distracted by cell phones are far more than the national average. In other words [加几句话吧，这样连，我感觉HOP 得太快。], the author can not guarantee the general case he stated applies to the "some states" in question. [我当时 写这道题的提纲时，我没有考虑过some states啊，回头我再想想:L。我个人认为。你在这里讲的关于some states的错误，不是很清晰。]

Finally, the author commits "false analogy" when he cites other activities, such as listening to the radio and disciplining children, which there is no need to be restricted[啊，这样说？？]as evidence for his claim. Nevertheless, using cell phones while driving is distinctive for such activities in nature, which makes restriction on it necessary [这句话，不对劲。] . For one thing, talking on a phone requires the driver to move his hand from the sheering wheel to hold the phone, which reduces his control over the wheel. For another thing, one can not [cannot] predict when the phone rings, so it increases the risk of driving[这样说？？？]Also, when the driver is talking on the phone, he or she is distracted from driving to a larger extent than, say listening to the radio, for he listens to the radio just for entertainment while he may be talking about something important over the phone. In a word, restriction on the use of the cell phones by drivers may be indispensable though there is no need banning listening to the radio or disciplining children.

To sum up, the author's claim those legislations [这里表达有问题] that restrict the use of handled cell phones by drivers of automobiles[结尾，太短了，我觉得 应该加上你个人觉得 如何说明才显得文章有逻辑的东西]
[  总的来说，我个人认为，你的逻辑错误， 可能你找对了，但是，你表达得，让人读了，有点，模凌两可。我感觉 在语言的表达上，要继续加强。 还有，在逻辑的过渡中，你还要加强。  继续努力哦，离8月25号，也不远了。一起努力啊。]

[还有，你在段的论述中，注意各段的平衡。]

[ Last edited by Alexandra on 2005-7-19 at 20:05 ]

czzbUID：208982

谢谢Alexander大哥的细心修改！

这个是我第一篇限时的argu，心里状态上和不限时就是大不一样，有些地方表达的却是不好，还要向大家多学习。

some states的那个错误我也没想到， 是看了寄托Argu综合参考区的资料后想到的，经你这么一说，觉得这个错误确实比较minor，不应该把重点放在那上面

结尾一定要指出哪些东西需要加强吗? 我觉得那样比较模式化，不喜欢新东方的八婆文章，所以可以写了简短的结尾，你觉得不足是吗？这点我一直不是太有底，请你指教。:)

abigredUID：154473

In this argument, the author claims that the legislations that restrict the use of handled cell phones by drivers of automobiles in some states are unnecessary and folly. However, several critical flaws render the argument invalid and unwarranted.

First, the fact that the majority of drivers with cell phones do not cause accidents does not make the restriction unnecessary. For（可以不用for） as is known to all, law functions  as  warning and prevention of the potential crime and delinquency, in this case, minimizing the occurrence of the traffic accidents. Even if there is only a small number of drivers who use cell phones while driving cause accidents,这好像是个病句 the legislation that restricts the use will be justified.

In addition, admitting that on average the number of drivers who use cell phones and cause traffic tragedies is negligible as the author implies, we can not exclude the possibility that in some states such legislation is needed. Because in some states, the accidents caused by drivers distracted by cell phones are far more than the national average. In other words, the author can not guarantee the general case he stated applies to the "some states" in question.  这个逻辑我没看出来，似乎不大明显，毕竟原文里面没有明显的说明是average，要能找到别的逻辑错误替代可能更好

Finally, the author commits "false analogy" when he cites other activities, such as listening to the radio and disciplining children, which there is no need to be restricted, as evidence for his claim. Nevertheless, using cell phones while driving is distinctive for such activities in nature, which makes restriction on it necessary. For one thing, talking on a phone requires the driver to move his hand from the sheering wheel to hold the phone, which reduces his control over the wheel. For another thing, one can not predict when the phone rings, so it increases the risk of driving. Also, when the driver is talking on the phone, he or she is distracted from driving to a larger extent than, say listening to the radio, for he listens to the radio just for entertainment while he may be talking about something important over the phone. In a word, restriction on the use of the cell phones by drivers may be indispensable though there is no need banning listening to the radio or disciplining children.

To sum up, the author's claim those legislations that restrict the use of handled cell phones by drivers of automobiles in some states are unnecessary and folly is problematic and thus unconvincing. On the contrary, it is entirely possible that such restriction is necessary and crucial for the residents in the states.

还有一个很重要的错误呢，就是作者把结论扩大化了，it follows that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient—or helpful in emergencies."
这还是比较明显的。

呵呵，还有，alexandra是妹妹～～～
第一篇写得不错啦，嗯，我得重新考虑自己的模板是不是太模式化了

czzbUID：208982

那还有请问这个结论扩大化的毛病怎么批呢？小弟愚笨，这个问题困扰很久了，还请静仪说得明确点

顺便给Alexande道歉了，一直看你的名字很男性化 bow……

abigredUID：154473

你可以批说，就算是在驾驶中使用手机可以不用法律禁止，但是这并不能人们可以随便使用任何“便利的”工具，如果工具是伤害别人的呢？之类的说法都可以

AlexandraUID：185174

Originally posted by czzb at 2005-7-19 20:47
谢谢Alexander大哥的细心修改！

这个是我第一篇限时的argu，心里状态上和不限时就是大不一样，有些地方表达的却是不好，还要向大家多学习。

some states的那个错误我也没想到， 是看了寄托Argu综合参考区的 ...

结尾，并不一定要说怎样怎样做，才使文章有说服力 怎么的，而是 我看了你的那篇 的过于简短的结尾才这样说，不过我也看到 有人说甚至结尾没写都可以，不知道是不是真的。

我觉得，模版 当然可以用，（不过我个人不太喜欢记东西）