新g Argu 41 求拍~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

dingda6 · 发表于 2012-1-17 22:58:04

In the argument, the arguer advocates the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets. To buttress the conclusion, the arguer cites two study related to emphasize the importance. Although it seems reasonable at first glance, it is ill-convinced in fact. The reasons are stated as follows.
In the first study, the arguer shows the statistics about the percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets through ten-year nationwide study, yet it makes no contribution to the accident rate. The percent number of wearing helmets does not indicate that it causes more accidents. Maybe the lives of people today are much better than before that they are much more likely to buy a helmet. The arguer's reasoning is definitly flawed unless the arguer can convince me that this or other scenarios are unlikely.
In the second study, the arguer cites that the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent and claims that bicyclists feel much safer because they are wearing helmets and therefore likely to take risks. Nevertheless, there is no garantee that it is necessary the case, and the arguer provides no evidence to confirm the conclusion. It is very possible that the number of bicycles and other vihecles has also been increasing during that period. To illustrate this point clearly, let us take a close example of it. We assume that there are 100 bicycle-related accidents in all 1000 vihecle accidents but 200 bicycle-related accidents in 10000 vihecle accidents. Though the number of bicycl-related accidents has increased, however, the percentage it makes up to total accidents has declined. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternatives, the arguer can not bolster the conclusion.
The last but not the least important, even if the evidence turns out to be supportive, the arguer can not recommand the government to encourage bicyclists not to wear helmets. Wearing a helmet is a very effective way to protect a bicyclist, while he or she has little awareness of danger. Wearing a helmet is a direct way to keep our brain from damage and hence make a bicyclist much safer.
To sum up, the arguer's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sounding reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.

ppguo · 发表于 2012-1-18 02:56:22

先提个小建议，下次能否请“dingda6"把原题目和中文或者英文提纲放在最前面呢，这样可以先看看你的思路。

ppguo · 发表于 2012-1-18 03:04:38

第二段，没有太明白是什么意思。如果原题目在这里对照一下可能会好一些。
第三段，不光题目里的200%increase 是攻击点。后半句更是。照常理来想，没有人只是因为带了头盔，就会横冲直撞，不顾危险。因为发生事故时，不光头重要。
还有一点，头盔的目的不是减少事故发生率，而是在事故中保护骑车人。

dingda6 · 发表于 2012-1-18 10:34:46

谢谢版主的建议~

lukebrehm · 发表于 2012-1-18 22:14:46

1. vehicle NOT vihecle
2. bicycle NOT bicycl

I am going to put one of your paragraphs in then the same paragraph but slightly revised so that you can look at some of the differences..

YOURS:

In the first study, the arguer shows the statistics about the percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets through ten-year nationwide study, yet it makes no contribution to the accident rate. The percent number of wearing helmets does not indicate that it causes more accidents. Maybe the lives of people today are much better than before that they are much more likely to buy a helmet. The arguer's reasoning is definitly flawed unless the arguer can convince me that this or other scenarios are unlikely.

MINE:

In the first study, the writer shows statistics on the percent of bicyclists reported wearing helmets nationwide through a ten year period, yet it makes no contribution to the accident rate. The percentage of people wearing helmets does not indicate that it causes more accidents. Maybe the living standard of people today is much better than before, thus they would be more likely to buy a helmet. The writer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the writer can somehow convince me that this or other scenarios are unlikely.

One more thing... Please attach the original statement so that we can have some reference to what you are saying. Although I changed some basic mistakes above, the sentences don't exactly read smoothly together and I couldn't change that because I had no reference. (just a note for the future

)

加油！

[argument] 新g Argu 41 求拍~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()