- UID
- 674178
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-9-21
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
慢了不只两分钟（加上检查的时间的话），看来光靠模板是不行的，必须得一刻不停的打啊~
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 seems have confidence in this argument, contending that the statistics indicates the reduction of risk deriving from investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment. However, this argument is unsound due to a series of unjustified assumptions made in the argument after a close scrutiny.
First off, the author mentioned the 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets as well as parking lots. In this case, he clearly assumes that this proportion of 75 percent could be representative of the whole people in that group. But the presumption is so weak that there exists a possibility that the whole number of people is four, in which case result loses its plausibility owing to its inaccuracy. What if the three of the four happened to be involved in accidents while other thousands of roller-skater managed to avoid accidents.
Moreover, even if the whole number of roller-skaters is large enough to be reasonable, the accidents referred in this argument could emanate from an irrelevant cause-effect relationship, which is not the lack of protective equipment causing the accidents. There’s no denying that the protective equipment could have nothing to do with the accidents, especially serious ones. As is universally known, protective equipments could only perform a role of protection to some extent, which defines as well as confines its function in merely slight accidents. From this point, the presumption of this cause-effect relationship between the accidents and the protective equipment is not convincible.
Besides, even though the foregoing assumptions could prove to be true later, a threshold problem remains that the author’s apparent presumption of equaling high-quality equipments to useful equipments is false in itself. For instance, a simple while shirt could better alert drivers to be vigilante sufficiently to avoid crashing into roller-skaters than high-quality equipments. This situation is same to a popular proverb: the most expensive is not always the best. Perhaps high-quality equipments focus on their styles and decorations more, so that the extra expenses on the high-quality equipments would contribute nothing to make the skaters safer. What’s more, the whole research is based on the accidents including severe and slight ones, but the conclusion drawn by the author contains only the severe accidents. This presumption makes no sense when it comes to tackle severe accidents with the method of common accidents.
In retrospect, this argument remains weak since a series of problematic assumptions pertaining to the accidents. The author should provide convincing evidence of the whole number of roller-skaters, of the true relationship between the accidents and the protective equipments, and of higher quality being congruent to better safety. Only then could the author offer a reasonable recommendation due to the reasons extracted from this argument.
451words,32min |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-10-2 11:45:07
收藏
收藏
楼主
