ARGUMENT151 [Victors小组]7月5日作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

ARGUMENT151 - The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper.

"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."
WORDS: 520          TIME: 00:30:00         

In this argument, the author concludes that former Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus for the careless and wastefulness in the construction of River Bridge. To justify this conclusion the author points out that the River Bridge, the one approved by the former mayor 20 years ago, was deteriorated more quickly than the longer one on upper river, Derby Bridge. Moreover, the author claims that the traffic problems would be less severe if the mayor had approved a better designed and wider one. However, close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the deterioration and traffic problems on the River Bridge attributes to inappropriate design. No evidences provided in the passage support it. It is totally possible that River Bridge is the only pass way in the region crossing the river, so that it has been overused for years. Or perhaps the maintenance work is so poor that the bridge could not sustain the busy traffic. Maybe the design was the most advantage one 20 years ago, but after aggressive technology development of the city it soon went out of date. Without eliminating or even considering such possibilities, the author could not convince me to accept the conclusion that the design was poor.

Even assuming the design for the bridge is problematic, no warrant could be made that the mayor should be condemned for the approval and the situation would be better if another proposal was accepted. First, there's no indication of other available designs at that time. Perhaps it was the only design of the bridge available for the city. Or it was the only choice under the budget at that time. Secondly, commonsense informs us that a series of people, like the designer, construction company and the city council, were involved in the approval of the construction that should be responsible. Until the author provides sufficient evidences to show mayor's role in determining the approval of the bridge, the conclusion could not be taken seriously.

Finally, if the deterioration and traffic problems were severe, the author overlooks the advantages that the bridge brought about to the city. Maybe the bridge connected the major national traffic system so that the city take great advantages of being a crucial point of the transportation system, like becoming the transfer center for varieties of goods. Or perhaps the bridge shortened the distance between downtown and suburb areas, for that matter, most residents in outskirts took less time on their way home. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine author's conclusion that the mayor should apologize to the city for the construction of River Bridge.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidences to show that current problems of the River Bridge attribute to its design. In addition, the author should complete the analysis of the two bridges to show their comparability and assure us mayor's fault in approving the construction. To better assess the argument, we need to know whether it would be possible to have better design 20 years ago.