AA28~请大家帮忙改一改~~

elaineqian

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.”

 

In this argument, the author concludes that the company should take actions to improve the use of the shuttle buses because of the low using volume. Specifically, the author assumes that if people choose to take shuttle buses other than drive there, the fares will reduced and the parking price will also increased. However, this argument is problematic in several aspects and the following discussion can clear demonstrate them.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that individuals would have to make an either-or choice. When people want to take new subway train, they have to make a decision between the shuttle buses and their own cars. Yet the author fails to rule out the possibility that some people may rides bike there, or even walks  to there. These alternatives might yield a middle ground for a better solution. Without taking these alternatives into account and ruling them out, the author oversimplifies the solution and hence cannot convince us to accept his claim.

Moreover, from the measures which the author advised, we can notice that the line of reasoning in this argument only depends on the assumption that the shuttle buses` fares are expensive and the parking price is cheap. Unfortunately, the reasoning is fallacious unless other possible causal explanations have been considered and ruled out. For example, perhaps the demerits of shuttle buses` are the cause of the low riding volume, or perhaps the high fares of shuttle bus are merely the result of the low riding volume. What is more, probably the low price for parking is just a reflection of the bad conditions about shuttle buses and has no relationship with the low buses riding volume. Thus, lacking such evidences, it is impossible to evaluate the validity of the results.

Furthermore, the last egregious error in this argument is the author`s use of only two methods as the basis for a generalization about the way improving the volume. Although, lowering the tickets fares is somewhat essential to increase the volume, nevertheless, so few examples are hardly sufficient to establish a general conclusion. For instance, we can take actions to improve the conditions of shuttle bus to increase the volume, but we do not know the cost-benefit analysis between this method and the author`s, thus we cannot make any conclusion at all in the face of such limited evidence.

On the whole, the author does not adequately support the conclusion on the basis of the evidence presented. This is because the evidence cited in argument is too weak and the argument includes such logical flaws as false dilemma, doubtful
    casual relationship, and hasty generalization. In order to better evaluate this argument, the author should not only rule out other alternatives but also provide more substantial and concrete evidence, just as the cost-benefit analysis between the fares of improving the conditions about shuttle bus and fares of tickets reducing.

红色笔是拼写错误还挺多的。。。我已经是二战了~还有9天考试，今天才开始模考加写作文，.482字符，就超时了10min.天！！！！！！！

请帮我看看吧~~~自己看不出所以然。。。

谢谢啦 哈哈~~

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/8/8 10:33:34编辑过]

elaineqian

晕。。斑竹帮忙看看吧~~~