Argument79 高频题 欢迎留链互拍

yaoqian0424UID: 2323517

TOPIC: ARGUMENT79 - The following appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry.

"The Longhaul trucking company was concerned that its annual accident rate (the number of accidents per mile driven) was too high. It granted a significant pay increase to its drivers and increased its training standards. It also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive. The following year, its trucks were involved in half the number of accidents as before the changes were implemented. A survey of other trucking companies found that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident. Therefore, trucking companies wishing to reduce their accident rate can do so simply by raising their drivers' pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive."
WORDS: 413          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-7-19 下午 07:28:04

The arguer cites the actual experience and an additional survey to conclude that trucking companies who intent to reduce accident rate should simply raise their drivers' pay as well as limit the overall number of hours they drive. However, the arguer's recommendation relies on a series unpersuasive assumption and is not convincing as it stands.

First of all, the arguer fails to provide the exact reason on the Longhaul (L) trucking company's decreasing rate of accidents. One year before, when L came to be aware of the high  annual accident rate, it implemented a series measures to prevent this ever-increasing trend such as increasing the pay of its drivers, enhancing the training standard and limiting the total number of hours the drivers could drive. Hence among the above mentioned measures, the arguer provides no information about the actual effective one. That means we are unable to know which of the three measures are take real function about reduce the accident rate of L. In addition, it is entirely possible that other factors such as the limit of speed on road, the increased lane widths as well as the resurfaced rough road which were carried out by local government contribute greatly to the less accident on the road, for that matter, maybe none of the measures implemented by L took the actual function. Simply put, without providing the exact reason for the decrease in accident rate, the arguer can not convince us that the two of the measures posed by L would help to reduce the accident.

In addition, the arguer also confuse the cause and effect relationship between the high pay and the less possible to have an accident drawn by the survey according to other trucking companies' situation. The arguer supposes that the high pay for the driver attribute to less likely to have accidents from the phenomenon that the highest-paid drivers were less possible to lead to accident. However, it might be the case that the drivers who possesses skillful dominant of truck as well as the utmost caution about driving gain the highest pay. That means the less possible to lead to accident is account for the high pay for drivers. For this matter, simply promote the salary of drivers in itself lends no support to prevent the incident of accidents for the driving skill and the caution of drivers remain the same.

Moreover, the arguer commits the fallacy of what might be a “hasty generalization” assuming that all the relevant circumstance of other trucking companies are the same as L and conclude that the methods implemented in L concerning increasing the pay of drivers and limiting the total number of driving would take the same function in other companies. Perhaps the pay for the drivers in other companies is already in high level, thus the additional salary may not motivate the drivers to be more careful and effective to avoiding accidents. Or perhaps the labor force in other companies is kept in low extent that reducing the overall number lends no help to get rid of the fatigue and carelessness of drivers. Either of the above possibilities, if true, would cause great suspicion about the validity of the argument.

In final analysis, it is presumptuous to accept the arguer’s unproven recommendation. To bolster his contentment, the arguer should get down to the real cause of the decrease in accident rate of L after implemented a series measures to prevent the increasing trend in accident rate, and figure out the causal relationship of the high pay for drivers and the less accident to clarify if the action of enhancing the pay would help to turn down the high accident rate.

星夜无夏UID: 2333978

原帖由 yaoqian0424 于 2007-7-19 20:25 发表
TOPIC: ARGUMENT79 - The following appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry.

"The Longhaul trucking company was concerned that its annual accident rate (the number of accidents pe ...

TOPIC: ARGUMENT79 - The following appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry.

"The Longhaul trucking company was concerned that its annual accident rate (the number of accidents per mile driven) was too high. It granted a significant pay increase to its drivers and increased its training standards. It also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive. §The following year, its trucks were involved in half the number of accidents as before the changes were implemented.§ A survey of other trucking companies found that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident.§ Therefore, trucking companies wishing to reduce their accident rate can do so simply by raising their drivers' pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive."
WORDS: 413          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-7-19 下午 07:28:04

The arguer cites the actual experience（用evidence好些） and an additional survey to conclude that trucking companies who intent to reduce accident rate should simply raise their drivers' pay as well as limit the overall number of hours they drive. However, the arguer's recommendation relies on a series of unpersuasive assumption and is not convincing as it stands.

第一句的总结性开头蛮好的，就是句子太长了，可以适当断一断。不过第一第二句就应该酱紫说！


First of all, the arguer fails to provide the exact reason on the Longhaul (L) trucking company's decreasing rate of accidents. One year before, when L came to be aware of the high  annual accident rate, it implemented a series measures to prevent this ever-increasing trend such as increasing the pay of its drivers, enhancing the training standard and limiting the total number of hours the drivers could drive. （这句背景的交待罗嗦了些，可以直接以提高惩罚金和限速的措施一笔带过，直接说错误的事）Hence among the above mentioned measures, the arguer provides no information （the arguer did not provide the information）about the actual effective（真实有效是这么表达的么……） one. That means we are unable to know which of the three measures are take real function about reduce the accident rate of L. （这里为什么没有任何说明？）In addition, it is entirely possible that other factors such as the limit of speed on road, the increased lane widths as well as the resurfaced rough road which were carried out by local government contribute greatly to the less accident on the road, for that matter, maybe none of the measures implemented by L took the actual function. Simply put, without providing the exact reason for the decrease in accident rate, the arguer can not convince us that the two of the measures posed by L would help to reduce the accident.

In addition, the arguer also confuse the cause and effect relationship between the high pay and the less possible to have an accident drawn by the survey according to other trucking companies' situation. The arguer supposes that the high pay for the driver attribute to less likely to have accidents from the phenomenon that the highest-paid drivers were less possible to lead to accident. However, it might be the case that the drivers who possesses skillful dominant of truck as well as the utmost caution about driving gain the highest pay. That means the less possible to lead to accident is account for the high pay for drivers. For this matter, simply promote the salary of drivers in itself lends no support to prevent the incident of accidents for the driving skill and the caution of drivers remain the same.

Moreover, the arguer commits the fallacy of what might be a “hasty generalization” assuming that all the relevant circumstance of other trucking companies are the same as L and conclude that the methods implemented in L concerning increasing the pay of drivers and limiting the total number of driving would take the same function in other companies. Perhaps the pay for the drivers in other companies is already in high level, thus the additional salary may not motivate the drivers to be more careful and effective to avoiding accidents. Or perhaps the labor force in other companies is kept in low extent that reducing the overall number lends no help to get rid of the fatigue and carelessness of drivers. Either of the above possibilities, if true, would cause great suspicion about the validity of the argument.

In final analysis, it is presumptuous to accept the arguer’s unproven recommendation. To bolster his contentment, the arguer should get down to the real cause of the decrease in accident rate of L after implemented a series measures to prevent the increasing trend in accident rate, and figure out the causal relationship of the high pay for drivers and the less accident to clarify if the action of enhancing the pay would help to turn down the high accident rate.

改了一半。。太困。。。明天继续。。。睡了。。。|||

yaoqian0424UID: 2323517

谢谢星星的辛苦修改哦~~