argument55 [0710G 戴三个表冲刺小组] 第五次作业

斯普特尼克UID: 2171287

继续random，继续囧
今天写得真是郁闷

TOPIC: ARGUMENT55- The following appeared in a Letter to the Editor of the Shady Villagenewspaper.

"Commutersare complaining that the rush hour traffic on Blue Highway between Shady Villageand Bright City has doubled their commuting time.Some commuters have asked that an additional traffic lane be built, but therecent creation of such a lane on nearby Green Highway apparently attracted morecommuters, judging from the fact that rush-hour traffic jams actually increasedthere this past winter. To reduce rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway, a bicycle lane should beadded instead of a traffic lane. This approach will succeed because manycitizens of Shady Village are avidbicyclists; 75 percent of respondents to a recent questionnaire distributedthere said they would like to bicycle more hours per week than they currentlydo."
WORDS: 469              TIME: 00:39:49          DATE: 2007-8-1下午 08:10:51

In this argument,the author claims that build an lane for bicycles can be the best way to reducethe rush hour traffic pressure on Blue  Highway, and gives examples to prove hisconclusion in this passage. At the first glance, this statement is somewhat convincingto some extent. After close scrutiny on this argument, nonetheless, it revealsthat it suffers from several vital errors with wrong comparison, vague evidenceand proofless analysis in the data and I will reveal them blow and prove howgroundless this statement is.

In the firstplace, the final intention of the author is clear to this passage: to reducerush-hour traffic on Blue Highway.However, the given evidences to support his conclusion are funny. GreenHighway, which indeed attract more commuters after adding a new traffic lane isthe "strongest" evidence given by the author, however, which is vagueand useless to support his conclusion because he ignored several crucialfactors in this problem: Firstly, no data in the passage that the Green Highwayexactly reduce the traffic jams, and even no data shows that other factorsincreased the attraction of Green Highway but not the traffic jams. Secondly,no absolutely facts shows that the new lane added on Green Highway is essential without the comparisonto the Blue Highway.Unfair and incomparable evidence and conformation is useless to our plan.

In the second place,suppose Green Highwaydo benefit from the newly added lane in traffic situation. The advise from theauthor that to build a bicycle lane can greatly reduce the rush-hour traffic inBlue Highway.With the survey that many residents in Shady Village are avid bicyclists and asurvey shows that maybe more residents would like to bicycle in the passage,the author cursorily given his conclusion that bicycle lane is necessary andactive in the city but he does not given any data that how many residents exactlygo to work or do private business by bicycle. Maybe they are just for fun orfitness and never ride on the highway? Failing to take these factors intoaccount, the augur could not make his or her recommendation convinced.

In the thirdplace, the author wrongly analyses or we say he ignored that if the bicyclistsare the most important factors to our traffic problem? Under the circumstancethat the primary phenomenon which lead to the traffic jams in the rush-hour isvague, oversimplified the uncertain facts will finally lead to the failedinvestment and enlarge the dissatisfaction of the mass.

To sum up, theauthor’s claim is proved groundless from what I discussed above. He have tocarry a study with both Blue and Green Highway’s traffic data involved and takeother factors into account and a newly careful plan to lent logicallycredibility to this argument.