AAA011, 请点评 - ChaseDream - Powered by Discuz!

斑竹不止一次的跟我建议开头段不要太长, 行文不要像个梯形. 今天练习了,好像还是改不掉. 开头段总想把所有的错误罗列一下,下面写分论点的时候可以做提纲. 三个错误一罗列, 就整整一大段了. 该怎么办呢? 请给意见！多谢！

“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 the argument, the author reaches a conclusion that it is suggested to achieve greater success with less expenditure by using all funds for stricter enforcement of speed limits. To buttress his argument, the author points out the case of Washington County (WC) that fails to meet its objective of improving high way safety. In addition, he provides the example of Adams County (AC) that successfully uses the small appropriation fund to reach its goal by striciting speed limit. Furthermore, the author bases his entire conclusion on the facts of last year. At first glance, the argument appears plausible, but a closer examination will reveal that several flaws exist as follows.

First, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy. The author concludes that we should achieve greater success by limiting speed because AC successfully achieved it by hiring more police officers and enforcing traffic laws. However, the argument rests on the assumption that WC is analogous to AC in all aspects. Yet, it is not necessarily the case. For instance, it is possible that WC is a much bigger county that has more neighboring counties. It is inevitable that only by improving the high way condition could spur the trade of WC. However, AC is a relatively small counties that only a few of policemen can regulate the traffic will. Without considering the difference between WC and AC, it is difficult to force WC to do the same thing as AC does.

Second, the author falsely assumes that all things are equal. From the argument, we can see that all facts cited by the author are from last year's statistics. However, the assumption is questionable. For instance, it is possible that the accidents incurred this year in WC significantly decreased because that drivers are more cautious than they used to be. It is equally possible that AC has more accident because the policemen did not pay much attention to the accident because of the good performance last year. It is not clear in this argument whether the current situation would be the same as it used to be. Thus, it is not proper to conclude that WC can only improve its safety by adopting speed limit.

Third, the author cites some data to explain his argument. The author reasons that because the accident in AC is 15% less than it was in the previous, the trend can illustrate that the law enforcement of AC is successful. Yet, the 15% cannot explain anything. If AC has lots of accidents in the previous year, then even though the accidents decreased in last year, its absolute number is still surprising.

In conclusion, the argument is not convincing unless the author can make clear in the following aspect. 1) WC is analogous to AC in all the aspects. 2) The condition of last year remains unchanged in this year and in the future. 3) The data cited can reasonably explain the fact.

以下是引用wendybao在2005-8-28 10:15:00的发言：

呵呵大家都会有这种想法的，但是还是尽量精简把话留到后面说。而且第一段的目的不是为了把逻辑错误找出来，而是把作者的论证思路整理出来用自己的话描述一下，让阅卷老师知道你明白了题目的意思。

A11. The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newspaper:

In the argument, the author reaches a conclusion that it is suggested to achieve greater success with less expenditure by using all funds for stricter enforcement of speed limits. To buttress his argument, the author points out the case of Washington County (WC) that fails to meet its objective of improving high way safety. In addition, he provides the example of Adams County (AC) that successfully uses the small appropriation fund to reach its goal by striciting speed limit. Furthermore, the author bases his entire conclusion on the facts of last year. 这句就可要可不要了At 缺一个 the first glance, the argument appears plausible, but a closer examination will reveal that several flaws exist as follows.

这次很好啊，第一段的时候不要挑逻辑错误把作者论证的脉络找到就好。

First, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy. The author concludes that we should achieve greater success by limiting speed because AC successfully achieved it by hiring more police officers and enforcing traffic laws. However, the argument rests on the assumption that WC is analogous to AC in all aspects. Yet, it is not necessarily the case. For instance, it is possible that WC is a much bigger county that has more neighboring counties. It is inevitable that only by improving the high way condition could spur the trade of WC. However, AC is a relatively small counties that only a few of policemen can regulate the traffic will.这是什么意思？ Without considering the difference between WC and AC, it is difficult to force WC to do the same thing as AC does.

Second, the author falsely assumes that all things are equal. From the argument, we can see that all facts cited by the author are from last year's statistics. However, the assumption is questionable. For instance, it is possible that the accidents incurred this year in WC significantly decreased because that drivers are more cautious than they used to be. It is equally possible that AC has more accident复数 because the policemen did not pay much attention to the accident because of 和前面的because重复了最好换一个due to怎么样？the good performance last year. It is not clear in this argument whether the current situation would be the same as it used to be. Thus, it is not proper to conclude that WC can only improve its safety by adopting speed limit.

Third, the author cites some data to explain his argument. 由于你前面的第一，第二都是直接把错误说出来，这里就显得不并列了。可以改成The statistics cited by the author is not sufficient to support his proposal.The author reasons that because the accident in AC is 15% less than it was in the previous, the trend can illustrate that the law enforcement of AC is successful. Yet, the 15% cannot explain anything. If AC has lots of accidents in the previous year, then even though the accidents decreased in last year, its absolute number is still surprising.

嗯,知道了. 谢谢两位的意见. 其实, 我对自己作文的结构和思路是很放心的, 就是觉得用词方面还有欠缺.呵呵,还希望以后大家能多在这方面给给指导意见. 下个月就考了 ,希望能取得一个理想的成绩.