argument

蔓草菊UID: 2195399

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.


In this argument, the arguer considers that the increased number of accidents is related with the speed limit for vehicles. However, the evidence provided in this argument cannot convince me greatly. A careful examination reveals how groundless the argument is.
In the first place, the arguer points out that after increasing the speed limit for vehicles in the region of Forestville, the number of automobile accidents has increased by 15%. However, the arguer provides no evidence that the 15% increasing is due to the increased speed limit for vehicles. It is entirely likely that in the period of six months the number of people taking automobiles in Forestville is increased and the 15% increase of automobiles accidents amounts to the increased number of people not the increased speed limit.
In the second place, six-month period is too short to make this argument convince. This short time is not representative. In fact, it is likely that there are many unusual reasons contributing to the 15% increase of automobiles such as the weather condition. it may be raining in the period of six-month in Forestville. Maybe in the next period of six-month, scant automobile accidents will occur. To convince me, the arguer must investigate in a longer time period.
Last but not least, the arguer conducts a nonsensical analogue. The two regions of Forestville and its neighbor-Elmsford are quite different in many aspects including the highways. The arguer does not point out that the conditions of these two highway systems. It is likely that highways in Forestville are not as smooth as that in Elmsford. In addition people traveling on the highways in Forestville may be less careful than people in Elmsford. If this is the case, the arguer cannot prove that increasing the speed limit for vehicles can cause the incidence of automobile accidents.
In conclusion, this argument is full of fallacious evidence to support its statement. To make me convince, the arguer would have to provide more information to substantiate what he argues. To evaluate this argument fairly, we need to some more details such as how many people traveling on the highways in Forestville before and after enacting the new speed limit. We also need to know the conditions between the two regions of Forestville and Elmsford.
第一篇A很烂的说

wonderfullnameUID: 2208232

In this argument, the arguer considers that the increased number of accidents is related with the speed limit for vehicles. However, the evidence provided in this argument cannot convince me greatly. A careful examination reveals how groundless the argument is.开头简洁干脆，但最后一句

In the first place, the arguer points out that after increasing the speed limit for vehicles in the region of Forestville, the number of automobile accidents has increased by 15%. However, the arguer provides no evidence that the 15% increasing is due to the increased speed limit for vehicles. 这句话好象有些问题，从arguer来看，提速就是汽车事故增长的证据，认为改为证据不充分好些It is entirely likely that in the period of six months the number of people taking automobiles in Forestville is increased and the 15% increase of automobiles accidents amounts to the increased number of people not the increased speed limit.针对数据进行反驳

In the second place, six-month period is too short to make this argument convince. This short time is not representative. In fact, it is likely that there are many unusual reasons contributing to the 15% increase of automobiles such as the weather condition. it may be raining in the period of six-month in Forestville. Maybe in the next period of six-month, scant automobile accidents will occur. To convince me, the arguer must investigate in a longer time period.针对时间进行反驳

Last but not least,记得在哪本书上看到过，说这样的表达不地道 the arguer conducts a nonsensical analogue. The two regions of Forestville and its neighbor-Elmsford are quite different in many aspects including the highways. The arguer does not point out that the conditions of these two highway systems. It is likely that highways in Forestville are not as smooth as that in Elmsford. In addition people traveling on the highways in Forestville may be less careful than people in Elmsford. If this is the case, the arguer cannot prove that increasing the speed limit for vehicles can cause the incidence of automobile accidents.针对地区进行反驳

In conclusion, this argument is full of fallacious evidence to support its statement.To make me convince个人不太喜欢这样的表达，把me换成people要好一些the arguer would have to provide more information to substantiate what he argues. To evaluate this argument fairly, we need to some more details such as how many people traveling on the highways in Forestville before and after enacting the new speed limit. We also need to know the conditions between the two regions of Forestville and Elmsford.下午看了imong对Argument的评析，很多人都不怎么赞成这种结尾的方式 但我觉得这种结尾段写起来应该会很顺手，所以自己也很矛盾以后写A时是否可以选择这样结尾

总的来说，文章找出了重要的错误，但字数少了点，有些地方应该还可以展开。
这次的Argument我的字数也只有这么多，可能多写几篇就会好的。

蔓草菊UID: 2195399

thank you so much