- UID
- 703448
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-12-20
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Argument 71 题目：
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."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
=======================================================================================
时间 35 字数 476
=======================================================================================
In this letter to Waymarsh Times, the author strongly recommended that Waymarsh should do some things to reduce commuting times and pollution by adopting a method from a nearby city -- Garville. By listing the benefits acquired by Garville and the report of a state traffic survey, the author makes up this suggestion. The process of reasoning seems good, but it isn't sound and persuasive enough, because he neglects many specific evidences that may weaken the argument.
In the first place, the author says that the typical driving commuter took 20 minutes to get work 20 years ago, while this average time nearly doubles in recent years. Some specific evidences like the change of the city and the vicissitudes of the length from a normal commuter's home to his workplace aren't considered in this argument. Imagine this, if the average length from commuters' homes to their workplaces is 10 miles 20 years ago, and this mean length now is 50 miles, the average time, however, is only twice as it was, a better condition of the road may be presented. To strengthen this argument, the author has to provide evidence that the distribution of commuters isn't changed a lot, which will make the two things more comparable.
In addition, the author asserts that policy adopted in Garville has made commuters there easily to go to work; as a consequence, Waymarsh should also take this action. It seems convincing, but the situations between the two cities may differ a lot. For instance, the commuters' distribution in Garville may be more concentrated, but the situation in Waymarsh is not. In other words, there is a big chance that two commuters to AT&T may be neighbors to each other in Garville; nevertheless, no such things that two commuters in the same company live close to each other. If the specific situation above occurs in the real life, this suggestion from this letter may be checked.
Finally, granted that it is true that situations above isn't happening, however, the author's claim about reducing pollution can also be weaken easily. Consider a specific situation that the most conspicuous pollution source in Waymarsh isn't vehicles' exhaust emission, but is the superfluity from factories and manufactories. In this way, a commuters' share of ride, which may efficiently reduce the exhaust emission, will not contribute to a decline of pollution. A failure to provide the data indication what is the most influential pollution source makes this argument less convincing.
To sum up, although the suggestion provided from this letter seems good and constructive, some flaws exist in the reasoning process. To make his argument more persuasive and believable, the author has to consider many specific evidences and provide more things to strengthen the inferential process. Only in this way, the suggestion may be more reasonable and the policy can be in an incubation period. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-5-3 10:39:41
收藏
收藏
楼主
