第一篇 argunent 高频 欢迎拍砖

duanmuyiyang

主要感觉自己的理由找的还不是最好，有没有更有说服力的理由？

28. The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.

“Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations.

 

The arguer recommends that the transit company must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations if it expects commuters to use the shuttle buses rather than drive to arrive at the station. To strengthen this conclusion, the arguer points out that commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. Moreover, it is assumed that people go to the subway station either by bus or by their own car in this argument. Though appear well at the first glance, the argument falls of several flaws after a careful examination.

 

First of all, this argument rests on the assumption that people go to the new subway either by bus or by their own car. However, nothing illustrates that this is the case, or no evidences infer it. The arguer fails to take into account other possible transition tools. Maybe a lot of commuter who rend the house near the new subway for the convenience merely walks to station. In addition, is there another transition tool in this local place, such as motorcycle or taxi? Without the detailed information about the transition condition in the local place, we cannot simply conclude that those people who do not ride the shuttle buses to the subway will all drive there.

 

Secondly, even most of the people who do not use the shuttle buses will entirely turn to drive their cars, it is unconvincing to deduce that reducing the shuttle bus fares or increasing the price of parking at the subway station will lead them to ride the shuttle buses more often. On one hand, the main reason why people do not prefer shuttle bus may lie in its low speed. People may complain that they it takes them so long time if they ride the bus, even when they get on it earlier, the low speed and stop at every spot will waste them so much time that cause them to be late. Therefore, even if the shuttle bus fares are reduced, balance between the low speed and reduced fares will also force people to abandon the bus service.

 

On the other hand, increasing the price of parking at the subway station may not have people to give up driving. The argument provides little information about the parking places near the station, if there are so many parking places around the station, which facilitate drivers to park and cost reasonable, people will still like to drive to the station. Thus, this argument seems groundless unless the arguer can offer more information and evidences to show that people will like to go by bus instead of by their own car.

 

To sum up, this argument is not conclusive as it stands. To make the argument logically acceptable, the arguer must provide more information about the transition condition in the local place to support that the commuter go to station either by bus or by car. Meanwhile, the arguer should bring more information and evidences to show that people will like to go by bus instead of by their own car. Only with more convincing information and evidence could this argument become more than just an emotion appeal.