- UID
- 711415
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-1-16
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
The following is a letter to the editor of the Waymarsh Times.
Traffic here in Waymarsh is becoming a problem. Although just three years ago a state traffic survey showed that the typical driving commuter took 20 minutes to get to work, the commute now takes closer to 40 minutes, according to the survey just completed. Members of the town council already have suggested more road building to address the problem, but as well as being expensive, the new construction will surely disrupt some of our residential neighborhoods. It would be better to follow the example of the nearby city of Garville. Last year Garville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work, giving them coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Garville have dropped since the policy was implemented, and people from Garville tell me that commuting times have fallen considerably. There is no reason why a policy like Garville's shouldn't work equally well in Waymarsh." time:30’50
In this argument, the arguer comes to the conclusion that policy like Garville's should be inmplemented equally well in Waymarsh. To illustrate this point of view, the arguer cites a state traffic survey showing that some statistics about changing of commuting time, and also give some examples in Garville to intensify the importance of such a policy. Although it seems reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follows.
First of all, the arguer cites a survey showing that the typical driving commuter took 20 minutes to get to work, and the commute now takes closer to 40 minute. Yet such statistics may not be convincing. It is very likely that the comuters were once close to the place where they worked and now the distance is much longer and therefore they take more time to get there. I will not be convinced unless the arguer can show some evidence that affirm these and other scenarios are unlikely.
In addition, the arguer also draws some examples from Garville. He shows that last year Garville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work, giving them coupons for free gas and pollution levels in Garville have dropped since the policy was implenented and also the commuting times have fallen considerably. Nevertheless, there is no garantee that the policy is neccassary the case, and the arguer does not give some evidence to support it. It is very possible that pollution levels and commuting times are influnced by other thing, such as the trees are getting more and more which results in low pollution level and the cars number has fallen recently in Garvile and hence impacts on commuting times. Without accouting for and ruling out these and other alternatives, the arguer can not bolster the conclusion.
Finally, even if the evidence mentioned above turns out to support the argument, the arguer can not simply draw the conclusion that such a policy like Garville's should work equally well in Waymarsh. Commonsense tells us that different places have different situations that this policy might not work trully well in Waymarsh. Maybe Waymarsh is not as wealthy as Garville and so it can not afford to give people coupons for free gas who share rides to work. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain why none of these and others is available.
To sum up, this argument is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning. In order to draw a better recommandation that the policy like Garville's will equally work well in Waymarsh, the arguer should cite more persuasive evidence and take every possible consideration into account. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-1-31 18:15:12
收藏
收藏
