Argument18 【Chasing For "6" Score】第一次作业

answer35UID: 2463414

Argument 18 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."

words:516                             time:90 min (第一次写，见丑了）


       Merely based on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and dubious evidence, the arguer comes to the conclusion that Prunty County (PC) recently lowered its speed limit from 55 mph to 45 on all major county roads; however it proved out of effort that it should be restored, and undertake the road improvement project. To justify the conclusion, the arguer points out that the accident rate throughout PC has just decreased slightly. In addition, the arguer asserts that after the improvement, major Butler County (BC) roads, which has sustained 55 mph limit while the accident rate has decreased 25% over last 5 years. However, the arguer ignores contain important concerns, which must be addressed to prove. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical defects as follows.
       To begin with, the argument merely rests on the assumption that the PC recently decrease speed limit on all major country. We need to question how much truth there is in the writer's assumption. Perhaps there is not enough time to investigate the effectiveness of the change in decreased the accident rate. It is entirely possible that the drivers have not adequate time to acclimatize themselves to the new speed limit. Moreover, maybe the accident rate has decreased slightly on the major roads, while on the other roads, it has increased seemingly. Thus, without sufficient evidence, the arguer cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusion about the speed limitation is ineffective.
       In addition, the arguer views high speed limit as the major factor exerts a determinative influence on the increase accident rate. However, he fails to consider and rule out other factors that may lead to increase accident rate. Perhaps some other factor, such as harsh weather condition, or an flux of inexperienced, or more younger, unsafe drivers to the area, has reflect on increase the accident rate. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for increase accident rate since implement the speed limit, on the basis of them, the arguer conclude that the speed limitation has failed is untenable.
       Even if the arguer can substantiate the foregoing assumptions, the arguer is unaware of the consideration of the possible difference between PC and BC that might help to bring a different result for PC. Unlike PC, BC which may contain other idiographic factors that leads to decrease accident rate to a great extent. For instance, perhaps the geographical and physical terrain in BC may be more conducive to driving safely. After all, the arguer provide no information regarding the statistic of accident rate in BC, it is difficult to assess the merit of the arguer's recommendation.
       To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. Not only does it leave out such key issue, but also cites the analysis the evidence, which does not lend powerful support to what arguer claims. To evaluate the argument, we should need more information regarding both other factors lead to the ineffective of speed limitation and the statistic of accident rate in BC. If the argument includes given element discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

loudUID: 2387861

Merely based on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and dubious evidence, the arguer comes to the conclusion that Prunty County (PC) recently lowered its speed limit from 55 mph to 45 on all major county roads; however it proved out of effort that it should be restored, and undertake the road improvement project. To justify the conclusion, the arguer points out that the accident rate throughout PC has just decreased slightly. In addition, the arguer asserts that after the improvement, major Butler County (BC) roads, which has sustained 55 mph limit while the accident rate has decreased 25% over last 5 years. However, the arguer ignores contain important concerns, which must be addressed to prove. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical defects as follows.
看了一下，感觉第一段和后面的段落长度都差不多，是不是不太好啊
       To begin with, the argument merely rests on the assumption that the PC recently decrease speed limit on all major country（是county不是country）. We need to question how much truth there is in the writer's assumption. Perhaps there is not enough time to investigate the effectiveness of the change in decreased the accident rate. It is entirely possible that the drivers have not adequate time to acclimatize themselves to the new speed limit. Moreover, maybe the accident rate has decreased slightly on the major roads, while on the other roads, it has increased seemingly. Thus, without sufficient evidence, the arguer cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusion about the speed limitation is ineffective.
后面一个批驳点有些强词夺理吧，而且对问题没有展开深入
       In addition, the arguer views high speed limit as the major factor exerts a determinative influence on the increase accident rate.（文中有这个意思吗？？） However, he fails to consider and rule out other factors that may lead to increase accident rate. Perhaps some other factor, such as harsh weather condition, or an flux of inexperienced, or more younger, unsafe drivers to the area, has reflect on increase the accident rate. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for increase accident rate since implement the speed limit, on the basis of them, the arguer conclude that the speed limitation has failed is untenable.
       Even if the arguer can substantiate the foregoing assumptions, the arguer is unaware of the consideration of the possible difference between PC and BC that might help to bring a different result for PC. Unlike PC, BC which may contain other idiographic factors that leads to decrease accident rate to a great extent. For instance, perhaps the geographical and physical terrain in BC may be more conducive to driving safely. After all, the arguer provide no information regarding the statistic of accident rate in BC, it is difficult to assess the merit of the arguer's recommendation.
       To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. Not only does it leave out such key issue, but also cites the analysis the evidence, which does not lend powerful support to what arguer claims. To evaluate the argument, we should need more information regarding both other factors lead to the ineffective of speed limitation and the statistic of accident rate in BC. If the argument includes given element discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

后面的没太看完，语言很不错了，应该背了很多北美范文吧，要不是不是按照北美范文修改的？
不过感觉基本上没有什么逻辑，都不在点子上，对问题也没有分析
看完了都不知道具体要说什么
建议先按照前人的观点写写看 体会体会 多在逻辑上下功夫


[ 本帖最后由 loud 于 2008-3-1 10:00 编辑 ]