argu 27 求拍~

ykhjy

27) The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. But last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. A better alternative is to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, and so would reduce rush-hour traffic rather than fostering an increase.

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.



In this letter, the author recommends to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway to reduce rush-hour traffic. To bolster the recommendation, the author points out that there is a need to slove the problem that commuting time has doubled. In addition, there is a bad paradigm in Green Highway that the favored proposal seems not be reasonable. Though it seems reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived. The reasons are stated as follows.

In the first place, the author seems to assume that there are a large number of commuters complaining about the doubled commuting time owed to the increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center. However, there is no information about how many commuters complaining about that. Maybe there are only a few people that they just be fed up working thus complain much about the doubled commuting time. Thus without the evidences that the doubled commuting time did affect a large amount of people's regular life, the recommendation seems to be unpersuasive.

In the second place, even there is really a need to solve this problem, the author assumes that the failure of the method to widen the highway in the nearby Green Highway indicates that the same mean used in Blue Highway must get the same result of Green Highway. However, there is some possibilities that there are many aspects in Green Highway that cannot be comparable in Blue way. It is very possible that the reason of bad traffic jams in Green Highway is that the traffic regulation is bad and there is no use to widen the highway. While in Blue Highway it is the main reason that the highway is not wide enough that lead to so bad traffic jams. In addition, the failure of the mean to widen the highway in Green Highway may be that it is not suitable to widen the highway there due to the geographical condition, while in Blue way, there is no problem to widen the highway. Therefore, without evidences of certain failure of taking the mean to widen the highway in Blue Highway, the recommendation seems unconvincing.

Finally, even if the method to widen the highway is not suitable in Blue Highway, adding a bicycling can be really effective? It seems questionable. First, there is no evidence that it is suitable to add a bicycle lane. It is possible that geographical condition is not fit for the project to filiate. Furthermore, although many area residents are keen bicyclists, we cannot equal this to that they are willing to riding bicycles to go to work. Maybe their workplace are far away from home and since they do not want to get up early in the morning, they decline to riding bicycles to work. Hence without any evidences that adding a bicycle lane will be effective, the recommendation seems invalid.

In conclusion, in order to better evaluate the validity of this recommendation, the author needs to offer more evidences concerning the necessity of solving the problem, if there is really a need to find a solution, rather than referring to other places' mean, it is better to look into the particular situation of Blue Highway to find the most suitable way to solve the problem.

普渡哥

the author seems to assume that there are a large number of commuters complaining about the doubled commuting time owed to the increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center. However

however前面应该用逗号。

ykhjy

THX~!

竹林中人

我不觉得第一点质疑的很恰当。

ykhjy

oh？我现在写argu 主要为了保证一种逻辑上的完整性，逻辑上如果说得通 是不是也可以？