一篇有错误的Argument范文（ETS已承认）

comorainUID: 192455

Comorain原创作品，未经许可不得转载

题目：“Sixmonths ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit forvehicles traveling on the region’s highways by ten miles per hour.Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents inthat region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit inElmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, andautomobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-monthperiod. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce thenumber of automobile accidents on theregion’s highways, they shouldcampaign to reduce Forestville’sspeed limit to what it was before theincrease.”(载于PracticeBook第60页)

6分范文：The agrument iswell-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making acomparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speedlimit and therefore automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford,an area of a lower speed limit and subsequently fewer accidents, theargument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decreaseaccidents seems logical.


However, the citizens of Forestville are failing toconsider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidentsafter the raise in speed limit. Such alternatives may include the factthat there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville,or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive todriving safely. It is possible that there are more younger,inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville thanthere are in Elmsford. In addition, the citizens have failed toconsider the geographical and physical terrain of the two differentareas. Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerouscurves, sharp turns, or has many intersections or merging points whereaccidents are more likely to occur. It appears reasonable, therefore,for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce thespeed in the entire area. Elmsford may be an area of easier drivingconditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of thespeed limit.


A six-month period is not a particularly long timeframe for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced thenumber of automobile accidents in the area. It is mentioned in theargument that Elmsford accidents decreased during the time period. Thismay have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, whenless people were driving on the road and therefore the number ofaccidents decreased. However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced byemployment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on theroads. Again, the demographics of the population are important. It ispossible that Elmsford citizens do not have to travel far from work orwork from their home, or do not work at all. Are there more people inForestville than there were sic months ago? If so, there may be anincreased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, andnot due to the increased speed limits. Also in reference to theactivities of the population, it is possible that Forestvilleinhabitants were traveling during less safe times of the day, such asearly in the morning, or during twilight. Work or family habits mayhave encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmsfordresidents may not have been forced to do so.


Overall, the reasoning behind decreasingForestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical aspresented above since the citizens are acting in their own bestinterests and want to protect their safety. However, before any finaldecisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens andofficials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives andcauses for the increased number of accidents over the six-month periodas compared to Elmsford.


早在复习09年6G作文时，我就注意到这篇官方6分范文颇有些问题。

题目的思路是这样的：在6个月的时期内，F地提高了限速标准，而交通事故数量上升了15％；E地维持限速标准不变，而交通事故数量略有下降。因此，要降低交通事故数量，F地应该学习E地，将限速标准改回从前。

而这篇范文从一开始就假定：F地的限速标准和交通事故量都比E地高，并自始至终都在此基础上驳斥原题目的推理。

但不幸的是，题目从来没有提出、也没有隐含这样的假设，因而范文的驳斥就成了“欲加之罪，何患无辞”。尽管这篇文章语言相当精彩，但在逻辑上却因为上述原因而大为失色，甚至达不到6分作文的标准。


我说的到底有没有道理？究竟是我对还是ETS对？下面我依据与ETS交流的信件，如实交待整件事情的曲折过程。


为逃避ETS探测器，下文请见附件。

家家☆yoonjaeUID: 2646910

SF~ 楼楼很BH~

用suspect的态度学习，是一种character ^^

O(∩_∩)O谢谢分享

HellboundUID: 2612220

为什么没人顶呢？难道大家都知道了？还是不看官方范文？

happy牧羊UID: 2662770

nB啊~~~~~~~  刚刚看完这个范文 搜到了这篇文章~~  谢谢楼主让我学习到你优秀的怀疑精神

thomas9UID: 2258968

我在看这篇范文的时候也发现这个问题：题目中从未说E比F绝对强，该范文有强辩的嫌疑。
佩服楼主的质疑和坚持精神！

jjqqqssUID: 2733301

由于抱着相同的疑问， 我找到了楼主的帖子。的确ETS的权威让很多人曾经一度怀疑自己，佩服楼主刨根问底的精神。

leizhiflyUID: 2639577

这篇文章我看了三天，语言非常好，句子也很美，但看着就是很别扭，感觉论证的很垃圾，它的理由看了好多遍都不能説服我，顺着作者的推理总是思维很混乱……看到这篇帖子，看来大家也都觉得有些问题，决定这篇范文不再看了，不理他了……

方圆圆UID: 2763004

庆幸自己逻辑思维还可以，也看出了问题，找到了这里。抱着怀疑的态度学习，有自己的思考，敢于挑战权威是难能可贵的精神，楼主是我们学习的榜样！！

liunian09UID: 2775676

谢谢 comorain 前辈， 严谨的思维和据理力争的精神  榜样~~

七七夕夕UID: 2753801

钦佩楼主的skepticism～
不过，我有点话说。。。

尽管lz说的没错，如果没有具体的两边的限速标准和以前的安全性，这篇文章就有问题～～
但是，根据最近的复习，怎么觉得这就跟要不要批survey一样呢～

survey是假设它本身是正确的，实际上就是相信作者的智商不会连一个错漏百出的survey还拿来做论据，当然，除非他是有什么目的（在这种情况下，是要批survey的，因为你可以怀疑他的人品）

说回这篇文章，如果一个地区本身限速是50，而另一地区是100，作者还把这件事情拿来说事，不就是脑子有问题了吗？何况，他建议的对象正是对自己地区的限速和邻近地区的限速都清楚的市民，这样不是也是愚弄老百姓，找抽吗？因此，我们不能认为他的智商低到如此吧？就算做促销的人，也不会这样去做，更何况还是这样一个热衷公益事业，为大家安全性找想的人呢？

因此，我认为，范文作者的假设在常识层面是成立的～～就算要批，带一笔就够了～～～
常识，常识要牢记在心～～～逻辑是为生活而存在的～～

貌似我也很skeptical了～～～:lol