argument31

TheoUID: 2108316

31The following appeared in the editorial section of a newsmagazine.

"Some states are creating new laws that restrict the use of of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles. Such legislation, however, is sheer folly. Although some people with cell phones undoubtedly cause problems on the road, including serious accidents, the majority do not. Besides, problems are also caused by drivers who are distracted by any number of other activities, from listening to the radio to disciplining children. Since there is no need to pass legislation restricting these and other such activities, it follows that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient—or helpful in emergencies."

In this argument, the author claims that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient or helpful in emergencies. To justify this conclusion, the arguer refers to the assumption that some people with hand-set cause problems on the road, but the majority do not. In addition, he/she mentions that other distracting activities are not restricted. However, the close scrutiny will reveal that none of the evidence provided in the analysis lends substantial buttress to the arguer's point of view.

To begin with, the arguer arbitrarily alleges that majority of people using cell phone when they are driving do not cause problems on the road without any statistics or survey. No doubt, this assumption is not legal, when lacking evidence. It is the possibility that the author overrides the number of accident which is caused by the driver who uses hand-set when he/she is driving. Without eliminating such possibility, the arguer cannot convince me that majority of drivers using hand-set do not cause accident on the road.

Furthermore, this statement suffers the fallacy of false analogy. Even though there is no restriction on any other distracting activities, it does not mean there should not be one on using handheld cell phone when driving. It is the possibility that the problems caused by other activities are not as many as those caused by hand-set, in addition, the author ignores the possibility that government will legislate restricting those activities right after using hand phone. Without ruling out such possibilities, the arguer cannot assert there should not be any restriction on using such convenient and helpful set.

To sum up, the recommendation lacks credibility because none of the evidence provided in the analysis is sufficient to brace the author's point of contention. To corroborate this conclusion, the arguer has to provide at least adequate statistics to prove that majority people using hand-set when driving do not cause problem, moreover, he/she is better of providing the evidence that the number of accidents caused by other distracting activities is as many as those caused by hand-set use on road and the government do not have possibility to legislate on the restriction on those activities.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-23 at 09:41 ]

Esther.LiUID: 191003

只找出了两条么？
我明天来批，嘿嘿
好久没来，该归队了

Esther.LiUID: 191003

今天贴到word里仔细看了一下
第一大问题是：论证too weak
去掉开头和结尾的套话不算，中间的论证部分一共184字，再去掉中间两段的头和尾，就没剩下多少了。虽然找出两条错误不会很严重地影响分数，但是前提是两条错误是major errors,并且论证充分。你抓的两个错误是主要错误，但是还有好几个错误，比如比较明显的一条是：路上打手机造成严重事故的只是少数人，所以不要限制。我们可以说强奸犯是少数人，所以就不该制裁么？（嘿嘿，举例BT一点，加深印象:lol）
第二大问题：模版痕迹太重
这个是个人感觉，也许因为内容不是很丰满，就像人太瘦必然形销骨立，只看到骨架结构了，呵呵:p

语法什么的自己都改过了是吧，没发现什么问题，呵呵，不过弱弱问一句：hand-set是什么啊？我没查到，呵呵:)


ps:我玩了好几天没学习了，作文一定有所退步，issue更是不会写，等我写了issue麻烦帮我看一下哈:D

TheoUID: 2108316

Thank you for your advice.
谢谢你帮我指出，这个问题我没有注意到。确实应该再补上一段。
继续努力啊保持每天两篇
PS：你PP3用会了吧？

Esther.LiUID: 191003

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=325340