2011.8G机经某argu求各路大神狂拍！！^^

skysboundless

题目：A ten year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that number is nearly 80 percent. Another study, however, suggests that during the same ten-year period, the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent. These results demonstrate that bicyclists feel safer because they are wearing helmets, and they take more risks as a result. Thus, to reduce the number of serious injures from bicycle accidents, the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets.
文：In this argument the author comes to the conclusion that if the government concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets,the number of serious injures of bicycle accidents will surely be reduced.To justify the claim,the author points out that during the same ten years period,the variation of the number of bicycle-related accidents illustrates a same tendency as the percentage of helmets wearing of bicyclists.The author also claims that the bicyclists who take more risks is due to the safer feeling of the helmets wearing,then throw themselves into the possibility of more to encounter accidents.Close scrutiny of these evidences,however,reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.
A threshold problem involves the definition of bicycle-related accidents.The author fails to define this critical term.Is the"bicycle-related accidents"means the accidents which cause of bicyclists or the accidents merely involves bicycles?If the latter one is correct,then obviously,the number of such accidents is none of the helmets' business.Ironically,because of the attentive shape and color of the helmets,other drivers or pedestrians would be more careful of these bicyclists and avoid the accidents in some cases as a result.In short,without a clear definition of bicycle-related accidents it is impossible to assess the strength of the argument.
Even the definition of the term is the former one.There is another problem that the author cites the ten-year-nationwide study to support the claim is invalid.The study only illustrate an increasing number of helmets wearing and bicycle-related accidents during this ten years period.However,no accurate happening sequence of them.Maybe the percentage of the helmets wearing stay unchanged in the first five years but the bicycle-related accidents dramatically surged double times in the half period and the contrast case happened in the other half of period.In this case,apparently that the accidents is unrelated with the helmets wearing.
Supposing that my critical thinking above is futile and even if that all the foregoing assumptions are justified,the argument still suffers from unfairly claiming that the serious injure of bicycle-related accidents is the result of taking more risks due to the safer feeling of the helmets wearing rather than some other possibility.In all probability,the injure is caused by some disordered intersections where traffic situation get out of control these years.Additionally,granted that when some drivers wear helmets make them more willing to take risks,the government can't discourage people wearing helmets,since the helmets can protect drivers from dangerous any way.
In sum,the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands.To strengthen it the author must demonstrate the definition of the bicycle-related accidents.The argument also need to clarify the relation between the helmets wearing and the accidents happening during the study of the ten years.To better serve the conclusion,the author have to consider what cause the serious injure in all aspects.Moreover,I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of this argument until the author can provide all information above.

竹林中人

which cause of bicyclists ？？
attentive ?shape？attentive不合适吧
avoid the accidents 这里不必用the
你的第一点质疑bicycle-related accident 的定义，这是很多人不会想到的
总的来说，还行，注意些基本的语法错误。继续努力

skysboundless

灰常感谢！！
第一处应该想表达which caused by....事故归因于单车；
第二处改为attractive。
第三处：总是搞不清楚什么时候用the，写文章觉得各处都可以用，有没有简单的判断方法啊。。？
3Q~

竹林中人

the 一般是特指，比如说这里，你用了，我会理解为the accident 提到的是发生过的某些accident，但实际上你是泛指的。这个最主要的

skysboundless

恩恩！！3Q~