argument18 【Chasing For "6" Score】第一次作业，留链回拍

fainting_robinUID: 2336582

无限时，尝试套用模版，期待点评，有效批改留链必回拍。

TOPIC: ARGUMENT18 - The following appeared in an editorial in a Prunty County newspaper. "In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from 55 miles per hour to 45 on all major county roads. But the 55 mph limit should be restored, because this safety effort has failed. Most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly. If we want to improve the safety of our roads, we should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than there were five years ago."

Given some facts and some assumptions, the author raises a recommendation that Prunty Country should restore speed limit to 55mph and undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler Country complete 5years ago. The recommendation seems somewhat convincing at the first glance; however, further scrutiny reveals that the argument suffers several flaws.

To begin with, the threshold assumption that the road improvement is the only reason for the accident drop in Butler Country is open to doubt in the following aspects. It is entirely possible that there are less cars driving on the roads of Butler Country, due to the immigration of resident, or a tendency in local people: walking to job or working at home. Less accident may be result from less heavy traffic.

Even if we concede that the broadness of lane widths and repair of rough surface contribute to the descent of incidence of traffic accident in Butler Country, we still can not draw the conclusion that these means would have same effect when carried out in Prunty Country. It is entirely possible that the road conditions are quite well in Prunty Country; there are not many small lanes to broaden or tough road to resurface; thus the road improvement may be a waste of money. Or instead of improving road conditions, the old warning sign and broken traffic lights, which are also important to car drive, may need to improve or change. In a word, without details about the road conditions in Prunty Country, the author can not prove that the improvement is necessary and useful on lowering accident incidence in Prunty Country.

Granted that the author is able to substantiate the necessity of road improvement in Prunty Country, he does not provide sufficient evidence to convince us that  the uselessness of the new speed limit in Prunty Country. It may be the case that while the speed limit decrease the accident rate, some other factors would increase it; and then it turns out to be a slight decline. To better illustrate, if Prunty Country is under rainy or foggy weather, which would enhance the chance for car accident, during the period of carrying out the new speed limit, then the explanations of slight decrease in accident rate must be reconsidered. Further, the new speed limit might not be implemented completely and effectively, with a lack of serious punishment, which results in the fact that most divers are exceeding the limit. If local police carry out the new speed limit strictly, then the accident rate may decrease significantly. To sum up, without excluding these possibilities, the author can not convince us of the uselessness of the new speed limit.

To conclude, the author’s argument is flawed by illogical reasoning. For the interests of people in Prunty Country, the speed limit must be remained; and then with more information and further consideration, local people will make decision by themselves whether or not undertake the road improvement.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2008-3-9 00:06 编辑 ]

xmubitUID: 2362643

Given some facts and some assumptions, the author raises a recommendation that Prunty Country should restore speed limit to 55mph and undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler Country complete 5years ago. The recommendation seems somewhat convincing at the first glance; however, further scrutiny reveals that the argument suffers several flaws.

To begin with, the threshold assumption that the road improvement is the only reason for the accident drop in Butler Country is open to doubt in the following aspects. It is entirely possible that there are less cars driving on the roads of Butler Country, due to the immigration change to ‘emigration’ of resident, or a tendency in local people: delete’:’ [which is] walking to job or working at home. Less accident may be result from less heavy traffic. exchange these two dialogues’ positions. You should further develop your points with more detailed comments.

Even if we concede that the broadness of lane widths and repair of rough surface contribute to the descent of incidence of traffic accident in Butler Country, we still can not draw the conclusion that these means would have same effect when carried out in Prunty Country. It is entirely possible that the road conditions are quite well in Prunty Country; there are not many small lanes to broaden or tough road to resurface; thus the road improvement may be a waste of money[not to mention better improving highway safety in PC]. Or instead of improving road conditions, the old warning sign and broken traffic lights, which are also important to car drive, may need to improve or change. In a word, without details about the road conditions in Prunty Country, the author can not prove that the improvement is necessary and useful on lowering accident incidence in Prunty Country.

Granted that the author is able to substantiate the necessity of road improvement in Prunty Country, he does not provide sufficient evidence to convince us that  the uselessness of the new speed limit in Prunty Country. It may be the case that while the speed limit decrease the accident rate, some other factors would increase it; and then it turns out to be a slight decline. To better illustrate change to ‘For example’, if Prunty Country is under rainy or foggy weather, which would enhance the chance for car accident, during the period of carrying out the new speed limit, then the explanations of slight decrease in accident rate must be reconsidered. Further, the new speed limit might not be implemented completely and effectively, with a lack of serious punishment, which results in the fact that most divers are exceeding the limit. If local police carry out the new speed limit strictly, then the accident rate may decrease significantly. To sum up, without excluding these possibilities, the author can not convince us of the uselessness of the new speed limit.

To conclude, the author’s argument is flawed by illogical reasoning. For the interests of people in Prunty Country, the speed limit must be remained; and then with more information and further consideration, local people will make decision by themselves whether or not undertake the road improvement.

In my opinion, you’d better move the first body part(the second paragraph) to the third part while keeping the sequence of the former second and third paragraphs. You can consult my syllabus on below:

My syllabus:
The conclusion that PC’s current safety effort has failed is still questionable.
1.      There are several causations of drivers’ excessive speed not related to the limit itself: more new drivers; more drivers from other areas outside PC who are not familiar with PC’s regulation.
2.      Decrease of the accident rate throughout PC has indeed proved the success of PC’s current safety effort though quite slightly: terrible whether condition lasted quite long time should be blamed for lots of accidents; less serious accidents;
The success of BC’s measure is open to doubt.
1.  Decrease of traffic accidents in BC may not actually reflect the traffic condition of BC. Less people are driving cars in BC for the bad traffic condition; Accident rate of BC is much higher than before; BC’s measure really works in the first few years but this year it deteriorates the traffic condition sharply.
2.    It may be other measures but not the improvements of road condition that make travelling in BC more safely: more polices on the road; more professional training provided for drivers.
It is too rash to implement BC’s measure in PC.
1.      BC’s measure may not work in PC: natural differences and different proficiency of drivers; current success cannot assure the potential success in the future.
2.      There may be other better methods to improve highway safety in PC.

[ 本帖最后由 xmubit 于 2008-3-5 07:47 编辑 ]

scentyUID: 2363244

我一直侧重点是在PC的highway和BC说的road condition
我觉得这两个中间是没有可比性的。
可是看大家都没有提到这个，难道是我自己发挥得太多了么？

fainting_robinUID: 2336582

谢谢哥哥的修改~~~

scentyUID: 2363244

Given some facts and some assumptions, the author raises a recommendation that Prunty Country should restore speed limit to 55mph and undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler Country complete 5years ago. The recommendation seems somewhat convincing at the first glance; however, further scrutiny reveals that the argument suffers several flaws.

To begin with, the threshold assumption that the road improvement is the only reason for the accident drop in Butler Country is open to doubt in the following aspects. It is entirely possible that there are less cars driving on the roads of Butler Country, due to the immigration of resident, or a tendency in local people: walking to job or working at home. Less accident may be result from less heavy traffic.

Even if we concede that the broadness of lane widths and repair of rough surface contribute to the descent of incidence of traffic accident in Butler Country, we still can not draw the conclusion that these means would have same effect when carried out in Prunty Country. It is entirely possible that the road conditions are quite well in Prunty Country; there are not many small lanes to broaden or tough road to resurface; thus the road improvement may be a waste of money. Or instead of improving road conditions, the old warning sign and broken traffic lights, which are also important to car drive, may need to improve or change. In a word, without details about the road conditions in Prunty Country, the author can not prove that the improvement is necessary and useful on lowering accident incidence in Prunty Country.

Granted that the author is able to substantiate the necessity of road improvement in Prunty Country, he does not provide sufficient evidence to convince us that  the uselessness of the new speed limit in Prunty Country. It may be the case that while the speed limit decrease the accident rate, some other factors would increase it; and then it turns out to be a slight decline. To better illustrate, For instancesif Prunty Country is under rainy or foggy weather, which would enhance the chance for car accident, during the period of carrying out the new speed limit, then the explanations of slight decrease in accident rate must be reconsidered. Further, the new speed limit might not be implemented completely and effectively, with a lack of serious punishment, which results in the fact that most divers driversare exceeding the limit. If local police carry out the new speed limit strictly, then the accident rate may decrease significantly. To sum up, without excluding these possibilities, the author can not convince us of the uselessness of the new speed limit.

To conclude, the author’s argument is flawed by illogical reasoning. For the interests of people in Prunty Country, the speed limit must be remained; and then with more information and further consideration, local people will make decision by themselves whether or not undertake the road improvement.
语言没有什么问题，但同意楼上的应该换下论证顺利。
整体感觉文章不够有力，都是轻描淡写的说可能这样啊，可能那样啊。。我不知道应该怎么改，就是说些我的看法。

fainting_robinUID: 2336582

谢谢你一针见血的点评！！我反思反思。

hbezllsUID: 2392974

从文字方面和层次方面，我都没什么好说的了，不过我觉得从论证的次序上来说把最后一段放到最前面比较合适，因为PC公路不安全寻求安全的例子BC安全增宽道路和重新铺面PC也这样适用， 我觉得argu的作者思路应该是这个方向，所以应该把最后一段放在最前面比较合适。

[ 本帖最后由 hbezlls 于 2008-3-6 15:54 编辑 ]

fainting_robinUID: 2336582

本文将会参考各G有意见重写，会留新链接在此。谢谢大家的帮助。
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-810743-1-1.html
重写稿。

[ 本帖最后由 fainting_robin 于 2008-3-9 20:15 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

Given some facts and some assumptions, (这句有点多余, A都是give这些东西. 另外你把被动分词用作同步修饰的话意思是"the author is given... and the author raises...应该是giving some facts才对) the author raises a recommendation that Prunty Country should restore speed limit to 55mph and undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler Country completed 5years ago. The recommendation seems somewhat convincing at the first glance; however, further scrutiny reveals that the argument suffers (from) several flaws.

开头很清楚直接, good job

To begin with, the threshold (作者的逻辑线有两个, 一个是新的速度限制没有, 一个是B市的经验会有用, 这个假设只是对应了后面一条线, 所以谈不上threshold) assumption that the road improvement is the only (作者没有提到only, 而且不是only也不影响它会发挥作用, 二者不构成逻辑对立) reason for the accident drop in Butler Country is open to doubt in the following aspects(less traffic, less accident只是一个方面吧, 其实还有象整体素质提高, 汽车质量改善等等).(后面的entirely possible提出的非常唐突, 因为你并没有说明作者的错误就直接这么说了, 等于把作者的语言作为前提对待, 而前提的批驳难度是非常大的, 因为你也没有论据说作者说的就不对. 因此在此之前应该提出作者的这个假设没有根据, 显得不合理, 比如说: lacking the accurate situation in Butler and close analysis on their transportation strategy effect...) It is entirely possible that there are less cars driving on the roads of Butler Country (now, compared with the situation five years ago), due to the immigration of residents, or a tendency in local people: walking to job or working at home. Less accident may be result from less heavy traffic.(它因可以再举多点, 另外结尾需要说明你的论证目的, 即Butler的政策可能没起效果)

Even if we concede that the broadness of lane widths and repair of rough surface contribute to the descent of incidence of traffic accident in Butler Country, we still can not draw the conclusion that these means would have same effect when carried out in Prunty Country. It is entirely (又是唐突展开列举它因的问题, 而且句势重复) possible that the road conditions are quite well in Prunty Country; there are not many small lanes to broaden or tough road to resurface; thus the road improvement may be a waste of money. (这句很唠叨, 直接写not given the actuality of current roads in Prunty, it may be possible that there is no need to repair or widen them. They can be wide enough and still in good condition. While five years ago in Butler....还一点就是要突出比较, 不然搞不好可能Butler五年前也挺好但改善了还是见效果的) Or instead of improving road conditions, the old warning sign and broken traffic lights, which are also important to car drive, may need to improve or change.(其它有效不代表这个无效, 其它要改进不代表这个就不需要改进, 一定要说就得说明可能那些更紧迫效果更明显, 而预算就这么多钱只能改一样) In a word, without details about the road conditions in Prunty Country, the author can not prove that the improvement is necessary and useful on lowering accident incidence in Prunty Country.

Granted that the author is able to substantiate the necessity of road improvement in Prunty Country, (让步假设的目的是把不同的逻辑层次剥离开来便于展开攻击, 而这里其实已经在提另外一件事了, 不是同一个逻辑线上的, 所以也没必要让步假设, 很明显不是同一件事.) he does not provide sufficient evidence to convince us that  the uselessness of the new speed limit in Prunty Country. It may be the case that while the speed limit decrease the accident rate, some other factors would increase it; and then it turns out to be a slight decline. To better illustrate, if Prunty Country is under rainy or foggy weather, which would enhance the chance for car accident, during the period of carrying out the new speed limit, then the explanations of slight decrease in accident rate must be reconsidered.(这段论证很不错) Further, the new speed limit might not be implemented completely and effectively, with a lack of serious punishment, which results in the fact that most divers are exceeding the limit. (这个不是在支持作者观点么:Most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit ) If local police carry out the new speed limit strictly, then the accident rate may decrease significantly.(这里应该指出不是政策本身的错误还是政策实行者的错误, 另外超速和事故率二者从作者的表述来看是有因果的, 因为很多人超速才事故率没降, 所以应该按作者的逻辑顺序来驳, 先说很多人超速不是政策本身的问题, 而且到底多少这个数字很模糊. 然后说可能起效果了只是被其它因素掩盖了) To sum up (段落里不要用这种总结全文的引导词, 容易混淆层次), without excluding these possibilities, the author can not convince us of the uselessness of the new speed limit.

To conclude, the author’s argument is flawed by illogical reasoning. For the interests of people in Prunty Country, the speed limit must be remained; and then with more information and further consideration, local people will make decision by themselves whether or not undertake the road improvement.

同上, 论证顺序最好做些调整, 另外在论证的细节上还可以继续雕琢, 有些逻辑问题需要注意
总体而言已经很成熟了, 以现在的水平去考拿个4.5应该没什么问题
加油~

fainting_robinUID: 2336582

大人熬夜帮我修改，真是感动！非常感谢！
我今天上午又把ARGUMENT18重写了一遍，可惜写之前没看到大人的修改意见- -~
现在刚刚看到~~~

关于更明确的指出作者的错误所在在这一点是最主要的收获。
再次谢谢斑竹大人~~~:loveliness: