标题: Argument142,求拍～～ [打印本页] 作者: lukeyu 时间: 2011-10-11 22:28 标题: Argument142,求拍～～ Argument 题号：新GRE142 题目：Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within that group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots had not been wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, the statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
写作要求：Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author would like to suggest persons who are enjoying and will participate the roller-skating that they had better invest in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment in order to reduce their risk of getting severe injure in the accident. This conclusion is well intended, but we shall not deny that it is lack of being convincing for the partial and not complete statistics.
The evidence from the hospital emergency rooms shows that 75 percent of people who participated roller-skating and got accidents in street or parking lots had not worn any protective clothing or any light-reflecting material, which can be probably that all of these people, at least most of these people, got not severely injured. The protection which is provided by these equipments is limited, but, in fact, many severe injure got in accidents is due to the high speed of vehicles and the bad situation of streets which is beyond the limitation that the protective equipments are able to provide. It can be concluded that these equipments may protect the participators from getting ordinary injure; however, the risk of being severely injured can still not be greatly declined.
Moreover, the statistics above are partially and only include the people who got accidents in the street or in the parking lots; however, there is considerable roller-skating players enjoying this sport in the court which is built particularly for roller-skating and board-skating and in which the better circumstantial situations allow them to enjoy much higher speed than doing it in streets or parking lots. We have confidence to believe that the higher speed they enjoy, the higher risk they may face, even though the protective equipment is worn. It is reasonable that there is a significant deal of people whose amount is far larger than the group who got accidents in streets or parking lot, so simply investing in protective equipments is far less enough to reduce the possibilities of being severely injured.
Besides, it is the popular scenes that young men and children enjoy the roller-skating in the park or on the square and little possibilities of being severely injured have they faced. It is the common sense that the expensive one may not be the best one, so it is the counterpart that some conductive measurement, such as encouraging the practice to move from streets to parks’ paths and to public square, may be more efficient and practicable than those high-tech equipments which pay more attention to the attractable appearance and serve mainly for professional athletes as to lack of popularities.
In retrospect，the argument is not convincible to call for the players to invest in the protective equipments in order to reduce the risk of being severely injured for its assumptions that is not logical enough and its partial counting statistics. The author should provide more convincing evidence to alert all roller-skating players to pay attention to the safety of them.作者: jz20000cn 时间: 2011-10-11 23:42
写得很好啊，赞一下。用了多长时间？作者: lukeyu 时间: 2011-10-12 00:39
太惭愧了，2个小时～～想不出反驳的论据～～一开始想偏了，老是在75 percent上面做文章，写着写着发现这是很有说服力的一个点，需要避开它～～作者既然是要说增加装备投资可以降低受伤风险，那就可以从增加装备投资不一定能降低受伤风险和不一定通过增加装备投资也能降低风险来反驳，想到这就好写多了～～不知这样的思路是否正确作者: ppguo 时间: 2011-10-12 09:37
同意，75%这个数量是足够了，但是他们的survey pool 往往都是可以被攻击的对象。 强烈建议看一下这个帖： http://forum.chasedream.com/GRE_Prep/thread-597600-1-1.html 里面是把argument题库按错误类型分类的，熟悉这些类型，就不用花太长时间拟提纲了。 会越练越好的，加油~~~！作者: lukeyu 时间: 2011-10-12 15:45
太感谢了，正在找这样的分类～～作者: ppguo 时间: 2011-10-13 01:29
不客气，我当年也这么过来的。