- UID
- 699485
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-12-7
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
125. A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that number is nearly 80 percent. Another study, however, suggests that during the same ten-year period, the number of accidents caused by bicycling has increased 200 percent. These results demonstrate that bicyclists feel safer because they are wearing helmets, and they take more risks as a result. Thus there is clearly a call for the government to strive to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents by launching an education program that concentrates on the factors other than helmet use that are necessary for bicycle safety.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
提纲：1.调查的客观性有待考证（调查的方式、样本的选择、调查数据的处理。。。。。以及10年来人口的变化—百分数不能反映真实情况）
2. 作者根据调查结果推论是骑车的人是由于戴了安全帽感觉自己很安全所以就会骑车冒险。--不一定是安全帽的影响，缺乏证据排除其它因素可能造成事故。
3. 安全教育的可行性（政府会重视安全教育吗？未来自行车是主要的交通工具吗？
有多少人会参加教育？）安全教育之后真的有效吗？--客观因素的存在。
字数：452严重超时
As the newsletter above, the author recommends that the government ought to develop an education program emphasizing factors other than helmet use in order to reduce cases of injuring in bicycle accidents. It seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion to launch an education program based on two studies relating to helmet utilizing and bicycle accidents. However, close scrutiny of the argument reveals the recommendation may not obtain the anticipated effect, rife with holes of evidence.
First and foremost, evidence is needed to substantiate whether the two studies is objective and reliable, which is the basis of the author’s inference. First, it does not offer how the proposal of studies is designed, including the choice of survey sites, the processing of date, the selection of respondents and so on. For instance, the study of bicycle accidents may merely depend on the statistics of crossroad where the traffic is heavy and apt to have an accident. Or if the respondents of the study ten years ago is mostly young novices, ones haven’t developed a habit of wearing helmets, then the result may be lower than the normal. Besides, we don’t know whether the population changes between the ten years and the percent could not reflect the realistic condition.
In addition, the author suggests that the bicyclists who wear helmets would take more risks as a result of feeling safer. Nevertheless, it needs evidence to rule out other possible reasons to cause bicycle accidents. For example, the number of bicycles has increased, as well as the motor vehicles and the population, which result in the traffic jam and are more likely to have traffic accidents, including bicycle accidents. What’s worse, the violation of traffic regulations is ignored by the author, an significant factor for the incidence of accidents. Unless the author also takes these factors into consideration and precludes them, developing an education program is unconvincing.
Finally, even though all the forgoing evidence is provided, the author still arrives the recommendation unpersuasively. No evidence could prove the program would function well. Whether the government would pay ample attention to the security education or whether bicycle accidents would be reduced after education couldn’t be guaranteed. There are a number of objective and factual factors leading to accidents happening and we could not predicate the effect of education program.
As it stands, the recommendation to launch an education program is plausible to function in effect, but it based on the insufficient evidence. To corroborate the argument, the author should supply more evidence of the credibility of the studies, and regard other factors causing accidents. Moreover, without deliberating the feasibility and effect of the program, the reliance of the recommendation is still open to doubt.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-4-27 21:23:48
收藏
收藏
楼主
