Argument 求指点

杨姝云 · 发表于 2012-12-20 15:13:57

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Balmer IslandGazette.

"The population on Balmer Island doubles during the summer months.During the summer, then, the town council of Balmer Island should decrease themaximum number of moped rentals allowed at each of the island's six moped andbicycle rental companies from 50 per day to 30 per day. This will significantlyreduce the number of summertime accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians. Theneighboring island of Torseau actually saw a 50 percent reduction in mopedaccidents last year when Torseau's town council enforced similar limits onmoped rentals. To help reduce moped accidents, therefore, we should alsoenforce these limitations during the summer months."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstatedassumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends onthese assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if theassumptions prove unwarranted.

=============================================================================

字数：537

==============================================================================

In this letter to Balmer Island Gazette, the author claims that alimitation about the maximum number of moped rentals should be set and it isvery likely to help with the reduction of traffic accidents happened in BalmerIsland. And he gives several facts to support his argument, but from my point ofview, the evidence are not convincing enough because the author omits some theassumptions on the evidence.

Firstly, the author asserts that a reduction in moped rentals willdecrease the accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians. This reason seemsgood, however, we could topple the assertion by just say something about theassumptions it based on. If the reduction really works, it means that most ofthose accidents are caused by faults made by moped riders rather thanpedestrians. And we know that we cannot get such information from thisargument. What if most of them are caused by pedestrians? If it does, suchreduction will make no sense, and pedestrians will go on causing accidentsinvolving themselves with bikes, skateboards or even vehicles. To avoid thissuspicion, the author has to add more information showing that those accidentsare always caused by mopeds. In this sense, the letter would be much moreconvincing.

By almost the same token, the author also doesn't say something aboutwhere are those accident-making mopeds from. It is very likely that the mopeds thatmade most accidents are owned by people living in Balmer Island and not rentedby tourists. It is highly probable that people who rent mopeds are always newto the island so they pay more attention to the traffic rules and cause feweraccidents. In the opposite side, residents who have mopeds don't care too muchabout the rules and ride them faster which consequently cause more accidents.If these things turn out to be true, the author's suggestion that the towncouncil decrease the maximum number of rentals makes no sense. Only byexcluding this kind of probability can we trust this argument more and takenext step effectively.

In addition, the author also says that Torseau's town council enforcedsimilar limits on moped rentals last year and the bill acts well. In myopinion, this fact cannot be a reason for us to do the similar thing. We knownothing about the town Torseau, the social environment can be totally differentfrom that of Balmer Island. This analogy can only be true if the trafficsituation and the usage or the preferences of riding a moped are almost thesame between the two areas. To make it more persuasive, the author has to compare Torseau with BalmerIsland and gives us the similarity of them, and consequently point out that thesame effects about traffic accidents will happen after the new bill is acted on Balmer Island.

To sum up, although evidence in this letter is seemingly convincing, thereare still lots of defects in it. Some assumptions are omitted so the reasoningprocess in this argument is weak. To strengthen it, much more information hasto be added. Only in this way can we achieve the same conclusion and then takehis advice to decrease the maximum number of moped rentals.

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-12-21 00:56:33

In this letter to Balmer Island Gazette, the author claims that alimitation about the maximum number of moped rentals should be set and it is very likely to help with the reduction of traffic accidents happened in BalmerIsland. And he gives several facts to support his argument, but from my point of view, the evidence are not convincing enough because the author omits some the ?assumptions on the evidence.

Firstly, the author asserts that a reduction in moped rentals will decrease the accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians. This reason seems good, however, we could topple the assertion by just say ?something about the assumptions it based on. If the reduction really works, it means that most of those accidents are caused by faults made by moped riders rather than pedestrians. And we know that we cannot get such information from this argument. What if most of them are caused by pedestrians? If it does, such reduction will make no sense, and pedestrians will go on causing accidents involving themselves with bikes, skateboards or even vehicles. To avoid this suspicion, the author has to add more information showing that those accidents are always caused by mopeds. In this sense, the letter would be much more convincing.

By almost the same token, the author also doesn't say something about where are those accident-making mopeds from. It is very likely that the mopeds that made most accidents are owned by people living in Balmer Island and not rentedby tourists. It is highly probable that people who rent mopeds are always new to the island so they pay more attention to the traffic rules and cause fewer accidents. In the opposite side, residents who have mopeds don't care too much about the rules and ride them faster which consequently cause more accidents.If these things turn out to be true, the author's suggestion that the town council decrease the maximum number of rentals makes no sense. Only by excluding this kind of probability can we trust this argument more and takenext step effectively.

第二点感觉不太准确，减少
mopeds跟是否是本地人关系不大。In addition, the author also says that Torseau's town council enforced similar limits on moped rentals last year and the bill acts well. In my opinion, this fact cannot be a reason for us to do the similar thing. We know nothing about the town Torseau, the social environment can be totally different from that of Balmer Island. This analogy can only be true if the traffic situation and the usage or the preferences of riding a moped are almost the same between the two areas. To make it more persuasive, the author has to compare Torseau with BalmerIsland and gives us the similarity of them, and consequently point out that the same effects about traffic accidents will happen after the new bill is acted on Balmer Island.

To sum up, although evidence in this letter is seemingly convincing, thereare still lots of defects in it. Some assumptions are omitted so the reasoningprocess in this argument is weak. To strengthen it, much more information hasto be added. Only in this way can we achieve the same conclusion and then takehis advice to decrease the maximum number of moped rentals.

感觉有进步，加油坚持写啊，中间断了些天了

杨姝云 · 发表于 2012-12-22 06:04:06

谢谢竹林指点~

[argument] Argument 求指点

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()