14 Augst ARGUMENT31

hyukiezhuUID: 2291070

The statement of the speaker concludes that the state legislation about restraint use of cell phone when citizen driving a car is not well-handled. In many aspects, this legislation is less helpful and even restrained the normal purpose of the communication tool. However, in my opinion, many of them can be challenged and the conclusion is also open to doubt.

By the primary reason，there is no property evidence to indicate the speaker’s assert that majority of the drivers with cell phones can not cause traffic accidents. When the speaker said majority people he or she must cite the relevant data and when, where, for what aim the data taken. With out these detail information, we can hardly believe that whether the number of people driving a car using cell phone is considerable.

Secondly, the speaker attempts to conclude that it should not be legislated of the cell phone with the reason of other behaviors are also lead to accidents. There is no necessary connection between this reason and result. The behaviors such as listening to the radio and disciplining children are only related to whether there should be a law to retrain these behaviors, but cannot determine the legislation about the cell phone.

Furthermore, based on the two aspects I challenged above, the speaker’s conclusion of legislation is folly is also impossibleto be defended. The final target of legislation is to abandon accident; restraint of the main reason is the most efficient way. Using cell phone had become one of the main reasons of accident already. The law regulates all people’s behaviors and eliminates one kind of malignant accident completely. Even though other factors such as listening to the radio and disciplining children are as serious as the cell phone using; they can hardly be defined whether the driver commits the regulation. So that restraint of cell phone is also helpful.

In sum, to persuade us to believe that the legislation of abandon cell phone during driving, the speaker must give us more connection between the reasons and results which indicate the how slight the driver is influenced by cell phone on accident causing. I would like to get more detail information of the law which retrained cell phone use is in property.   

hermituforestUID: 2354296

The statement of the speaker concludes that the state legislation about restraint use of cell phone when citizen driving a car is not well-handled. In many aspects, this legislation is less helpful and even restrained the normal purpose of the communication tool. However, in my opinion, many of them can be challenged and the conclusion is also open to doubt.

By the primary reason，there is no property evidence to indicate the speaker’s assert（assertion） that majority of the drivers with cell phones can not cause traffic accidents. When the speaker said majority people he or she must cite the relevant data and when, where, for what aim the data taken. With out these detail information, we can hardly believe that whether the number of people driving a car using cell phone is considerable.

（个人认为类似这种论述少用为妙，argument更重要的是以理服人，而单单指出“没有证据”这种话显得不是那么有说服力）

Secondly, the speaker attempts to conclude that it should not be legislated of the cell phone with the reason of other behaviors are also lead to accidents.（这句话好像有语法错误，再斟酌下~~） There is no necessary connection between this reason and result. The behaviors such as listening to the radio and disciplining children are only related to whether there should be a law to retrain these behaviors, but cannot determine the legislation about the cell phone.

Furthermore, based on the two aspects I challenged above, the speaker’s conclusion of legislation is folly is（。。。） also impossibleto be defended. The final target of legislation is to abandon accident; restraint of the main reason is the most efficient way. Using cell phone had become one of the main reasons of accident already. The law regulates all people’s behaviors and eliminates one kind of malignant（开车打电话算不上malignant） accident completely. Even though other factors such as listening to the radio and disciplining children are as serious as the cell phone using; they can hardly be defined whether the driver commits the regulation. So that restraint of cell phone is also helpful.

In sum, to persuade us to believe that the legislation of abandon cell phone during driving, the speaker must give us more connection between the reasons and results which indicate the how slight the driver is influenced by cell phone on accident causing. I would like to get more detail information of the law which retrained cell phone use is in property.   

在写每篇argument之前貌似应该仔细的思考下题目，argument是辩论，需要令人信服，所以说不要随便的写“没有证据”这种错误，那样就好像是在挑刺了。