AA11
A11. The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newspaper:
“Last year when
According to the argument, the author advocates that the state mentioned should use all its funds to reinforce speed limits rather than improve road condition. To buttress his claim, the author cites that in
To begin with, the author illogically assumes that strengthening certain county road is useless in preventing car accidents because after the improvement the number of accidents rises. No information, however, is offered to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is possible that the accidents in the certain improved road decrease significantly. Moreover, the author fails to rule out other potential factors that may lead to the phenomenon. For instance, the accidents this year outnumber those of previous year because this year
Additionally, the author fallaciously postulates that the stricter speed limit is the only reason for accident decline because the enforcement happens occasionally before the decrease. The mere statistical correlation does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between the two events. Many other factors may help to explain the phenomenon. For example, people may become more prudent when drive because
Last but not lease, the author commits the fallacy of "all things equal". Granted that the stricter enforcement lead to accidents decline in
To sum up, it is unwise for a prudent decision-maker to accept the recommendation soly on the basis of the analysis presented, because the information quoted in the argument is too vague to guarantee the author's claim. To solidify the proposal, the author should demonstrate that enforcement of speed limits is an indispensable solution. Moreover, I would be still skeptical about the validity of the conclusion unless the author finally excludes all the potentialities analyzed above.
AA11
A11. The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newspaper:
“Last year when
According to the argument, the author advocates that the state mentioned should use all its funds to reinforce speed limits rather than improve road condition. To buttress his claim, the author cites that in
“The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
Based upon a survey among workers that indicates a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs, the author concludes that workers are not apathetic about management issues. Specifically, it is argued that since 79 percent of the 1200 workers who responded to survey expressed interest in these topics, the notion that workers are apathetic about management issues is incorrect. The reasoning in this argument is problematic in several respects.
呵呵这是AWA224里面的一个开头。我觉得可以参考一下其中的时态哦。作者的意见观点用一般现在式没有问题。但是 cite 的内容由于已经有了明显的过去时间状语建议还是采用过去式和相应的过去完成式。后面提到的内容也是如此。
To begin with, the author illogically assumes that strengthening certain county road is useless in preventing car accidents because after the improvement the number of accidents rises. No information, however, is offered to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is possible that the accidents in the certain improved road decrease significantly. Moreover, the author fails to rule out other potential factors that may lead to the phenomenon. For instance, the accidents this year outnumber those of previous year because this year
Additionally, the author fallaciously postulates that the stricter speed limit is the only reason for accident decline because the enforcement happens occasionally before the decrease. The mere statistical correlation does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between the two events. Many other factors may help to explain the phenomenon. For example, people may become more prudent when drive because
Last but not lease, the author commits the fallacy of "all things equal". Granted that the stricter enforcement lead to accidents
这个是固定用法吗?
decline in
To sum up, it is unwise for a prudent decision-maker to accept the recommendation soly on the basis of the analysis presented, because the information quoted in the argument is too vague to guarantee the author's claim. To solidify the proposal, the author should demonstrate that enforcement of speed limits is an indispensable solution. Moreover, I would be still skeptical about the validity of the conclusion unless the author finally excludes all the potentialities analyzed above.
就是时态了,别的问题都不大。已经写的很好了。时态的问题找几篇AWA的范文就可以解决了哦。不只是开头,行文里面遇到引用作者的证据的也要注意。
这里似乎还有一个偷换概念的错误:例子中的more police officers and more strict traffic laws不等于stricter enforcement of speed limits.
像这种偷换概念的错误应该怎么表述呢?
Waiting for further discussion...
1.washington county车祸多了,是否有其他原因影响
2。adam county 车祸少了,是否有其他原因影响。
3,两个county不同,没有可比性?
4。county的情况不适用于整个state?
5。stricter enforcement of speed limits 不等同于more police and enforcement of traffic law more strictly
这不是题库的题阿?
JUNHONG还发现一个问题就是:偷换概念 enforce traffic laws 和 enfrcement of speed limit
也许A COUNTRY的行动中没有用这一条.
欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |