Argument89【六人作文小组】第2周第1次作业

空即是色UID: 2496914

Argument 89: Speed limits on our state's highways should be eliminated in order to increase our state's prosperity. Because greater speed means more efficient travel, commercial deliveries will be faster, increasing business profits. Elimination of speed limits will also make driving more attractive to motorists, so that more people will use the highways, providing more highway toll revenues for the state. At the same time, safety on our highways will not be affected: daytime speed limits were eliminated last year in the western states of our country, and no significant increase in the number of accidents in these states has been reported.

提纲：1、限速与繁荣之间无关
         高速TO高效TO快捷的物流TO利润---未必，无证据
       取消限速TO吸引司机使用TO路费收入---同上
      3、西部州的错误类比

The argument is well-presented, but some facts are still questionable. The author draws a conclusion that elimination will foster the development of this state. To strengthen his conclusion, he provides two reasons: one is the higher speed and attraction, the other is citing the less effect condition in the western states.

The author fails to establish a causal relationship between speed limit and prosperity. High speed is not relevant to business profits. It is mentioned in the argument that greater speed leads to much faster travel that could contribute to business profit. However, there is no data to show us how many travelers and commercial deliveries are using highways, so that we could not evaluate to what extend the elimination would increase the prosperity. It is possible that the awesome weather condition such as blizzard and flooding rain cause to fewer travelers, or in this state the economic pillar is not commerce but an the undeveloped self-sufficiency mode that it is unnecessarily to deliver. And to increase profit it has to reduce the cost or enhance the sum sales volume, whereas the author ignores to concern such facts in the argument. Furthermore, the author indicates that speed limits of highways could draw more attention of drivers thus more revenues will be acquired in using highway. It seems unfounded and un-logical that whether drivers will choose for highways, to a large extent, relates to the ways’ condition and cost.

In addition, an incorrect compare between western states and here is less and insufficient analysis. The author fails to consider the difference in these two ones. Such alternatives might include the fact that the situation of highways in western states is pretty better or most of native drivers are inexperienced, younger, and unsafe. It is also possible that local highways come through the maintain area that exist more sharp turns where easily results in accidents. Moreover, the number of accidents has not increased significantly does not mean the elimination of speed limit affects and guarantees safety. The author emphasizes the accidents that be reported, obviously it is might be consider that some less serious accidents still occur, or perhaps some of the accidents are not reported because they took place in sparsely known area.

Overall, the assumption of effect on elimination of speed limit is unfair. To strength it the author must provide more evidence that increase business profits and attract more people drive in highways. To better evaluate there should be a appropriate object to compare with, rather than an arbitrary one.