AAA11 我第一次写AA,请CD前辈给些意见

he51

老觉得没有把论点写透,但已经写了400字了.请教有什么地方出错.谢谢!!

"Last year when Washington County received a special appropriation for improving highway safety, it spent all those funds to straighten sections of certain county roads. Unfortunately, the number of traffic accidents in the county was actually higher than in the previous year. Although Adams County received a smaller appropriation for improving highway safety, it hired more police officers and enforced traffic laws more strictly. Last year Adams County reported 15% fewer traffic accidents than during the previous year. Since money for improving highway safety throughout the state is limited, we can achieve greater success with less expenditure by using all such funds for stricter enforcement of speed limits."

In this argument the author reaches the conclusion that improving highway safety throughout the state can be achieved solely through spending all funds for stricter enforcement of speed limits. The basis for this recommendation is that last year Washington County spent all funds to improve road condition but resulted in higher traffic accidental rate. On the other hand, the Adams County spent all its funding to stricter enforcement of speed limits through hiring more police officers. The result is 15% fewer traffic accidents. At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some important factors that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.

First, throughout the whole argument, there is no even one single thread of information on what causes the accidents both in both Counties. In real life, there are many factors that can cause the number of traffic accident to increase. For example, due to the recent boom in auto sales, there are more new vehicles and new drivers on the road last year than ever before. This could lead to a higher traffic accident rate despite the road condition and the number of police officer on duty.

Further more, the author relies on an assumption that the 15% reduction in traffic accidents in Adams County is solely contributed by stricter enforcement in speed limit. However, it is common sense that many other factors also help to make the road safer. For instants, improvement in public transportation such as new bus route and subway station can reduce the number of individual vehicles on the road, which eventually leads to fewer accidents.

Admittedly, stricter enforcement in speed limits does help to reduce traffic accidental rate. In general, the more police in patrol, the better drivers behave, and thus the fewer accidents happen. However, no matter how strict the speed limit is enforced, accidents will happen if the road condition become unsafe.

In sum, the author fails to provide sufficient support to conclude that stricter enforcement in speed limit is the best cure for traffic accidents. As it stands, the reasoning does not constitute a sound argument in favor of the recommendation to spend all funding into hiring police officer. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide evidence to prove that speeding is the main cause for accident.

In this argument the author reaches the conclusion that improving highway safety throughout the state can be achieved solely through spending all funds for stricter enforcement of speed limits. The basis for this recommendation is that last year Washington County spent all funds to improve road condition but resulted in higher traffic accidental rate. On the other hand, the Adams County spent all its funding to stricter enforcement of speed limits through hiring more police officers. The result is 15% fewer traffic accidents. At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some important factors that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.

First, throughout the whole argument, there is no even one single thread of information on what causes the accidents both in both Counties. In real life, there are many factors that can cause the number of traffic accident to increase. For example, due to the recent boom in auto sales, there are more new vehicles and new drivers on the road last year than ever before. This could lead to a higher traffic accident rate despite the road condition and the number of police officer on duty.

Further more, the author relies on an assumption that the 15% reduction in traffic accidents in Adams County is solely contributed by stricter enforcement in speed limit. However, it is common sense that many other factors also help to make the road safer. For instants, improvement in public transportation such as new bus route and subway station can reduce the number of individual vehicles on the road, which eventually leads to fewer accidents.

Admittedly, stricter enforcement in speed limits does help to reduce traffic accidental rate. In general, the more police in patrol, the better drivers behave, and thus the fewer accidents happen. However, no matter how strict the speed limit is enforced, accidents will happen if the road condition become unsafe.

In sum, the author fails to provide sufficient support to conclude that stricter enforcement in speed limit is the best cure for traffic accidents. As it stands, the reasoning does not constitute a sound argument in favor of the recommendation to spend all funding into hiring police officer. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide evidence to prove that speeding is the main cause for accident.

rhod

1. 开头部分稍显冗余，我的建议是观点直接开门见山。

2. 论证部分结构很好，但是没有展开，显得字数不够，单薄了一些。

3. 我不建议AA里面用作concession. AA里面考察的是对逻辑错误的判断，没有什么要做让步的。AI里面倒是可以用admittedly。

soaring

以下是引用rhod在2004-11-11 18:30:00的发言：

我不建议AA里面用作concession. AA里面考察的是对逻辑错误的判断，没有什么要做让步的。AI里面倒是可以用admittedly。

he51

有道理!收益非浅, 谢谢!