[求助]AAA11 完全拼凑大法

AAA11完全拼凑版，问一个问题：这样拼凑是否可以；我是阅卷老师，我都不会给4分以上的。

A11. The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newspaper:
“Last year when Washington County received a special appropriation for improving highway safety, it spent all those funds to straighten sections of certain county roads. Unfortunately, the number of traffic accidents in the county was actually higher than in the previous year. Although Adams County received a smaller appropriation for improving highway safety, it hired more police officers and enforced traffic laws more strictly. Last year Adams County reported 15% fewer traffic accidents than during the previous year. Since money for improving highway safety throughout the state is limited, we can achieve greater success with less expenditure by using all such funds for stricter enforcement of speed limits.”

In this argument, the author concludes that a city can achieve greater success with less expenditure by using all such funds for stricter enforcement of speed limits. To support the arguement, the author points out that Washington County spent all the founds for improing highway safety to straighten sections of certain county reads. But the number of traffic accidents in the county was higer than in the previous year. On the contrary, Adams County hired more police offeicers and enforced taffic laws more strictly. At the first glance, the author's argument seems to be reasonable, while ,after a close exammination, we can see how dubious it is. The argument is problematic in the following aspects.

In the first place, the argument commits a logic fallacy of “After This, Therefore, Because of This” . In no case can the mere fact that after the Adams hired more police and enforced traffic laws more srictly, the trafic accidents declined be cited as evidence to support the assumption that there is a causal-effect relationship between the declining accidents and the hireing more police and enforceing traffic laws more srictly.The author has obviously neglected the possibility of other alternative facts such as casual events, or weather condition ，which may contribute to a certain extent to traffic accidents.  Unless the author can rule out other factors relevant to traffic accidents, this assumption in question can not be accepted.

Secondly,  The author also commits the fallacy of “all things are equal”.  The fact that happened inthe last year in one city is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that the measure will effecitve for any time in any city .  The author assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different times or at different locations.  However, it is not clear in this argument whether the current conditions at Wanshington County or Adams County are the same as they used to be two years ago.  Thus it is impossible to conclude that we can achieve greater success with less expenditure by using all such funds for stricter enforcement of speed limits.

In the third place, the evidence that the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. The example of the two countries is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. Unless the arguer can show that the two counties is representative of all cities, the conclusion that we can achieve greater success with less expenditure by using all such funds for stricter enforcement of speed limits is completely unwarranted. In fact, in face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.

In the fourth place, the argument has also committed a false analogy fallacy. The argument rests on the assumption that Washington county is analogous to Asams county in all respects, and the author assumes without justification that all things are equal, and that the background conditions have remained the same at different times or at different locations. There is, however, no guarantee that this is the case. Nor does the author cite any evidence to support this assumption. Lacking this assumption, the conclusion is entirely unfounded. In fact, it is highly doubtful that the facts drawn from Adams County are applicable to Washington county. Differences between the two counties is clearly out weight the similarities, thus making the analogy highly less than valid. For example, previous traffic accidents in the two county are quitely different.

In conclusion, the author provides an incomplete analysis of the problem and, as a result, provides a questionable solution. To solidify the argument, the author should supply more evidence to demonstrate that a city can achieve greater success with less expenditure by using all such funds for stricter enforcement of speed limits. Moreover, the author would have to rule out the possibilities that might undermine the auger’s conclusion.
.

是否有人会答一下？

请NN帮忙看一下。谢谢！