Arg-13
In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County last year lowered its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour on all county highways. But this effort has failed: the number of accidents has not decreased, and, based on reports by the highway patrol, many drivers are exceeding the speed limit. Prunty County should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths, resurfacing rough highways, and improving visibility at dangerous intersections. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than there were five years ago. 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.
This author argues that a recent reduction in Prunty County's speed limit on its major roads (55 to 45 miles per hour miles per hour) has proven ineffective and that the county should rescind the speed limit change. Instead, urges the author, the city should focus on infrastructure improvement, much like Butler County, wherein drivers experienced a 25% reduction in accidents while enjoying speeds of up to 55 miles per hour. After a review of the assumptions therein, the integrity of the argument comes into question.
Firstly, only recently has the speed limit in Pruntly County been reduced and only for major roads. Perhaps not enough time has passed to determine the change’s effectiveness. Further, no indication of results from a study on the roadways with a speed limit change has been provided. Lacking such a link between the conclusions that Prunty's road safety effort initiative has failed is invalidated.
Secondly, the argument assumes that all other factors affecting highway accident rates have remained unchanged since the county lowered its speed limit. However, the author fails to provide evidence to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that the lower speed limit does in fact serve to reduce the accident rate, while some other factor, such as unseasonably poor weather, reduced law enforcement measures, or even an influx of teenage drivers to the area, has served to increase the accident rate. Without considering and ruling out these and other factors that might have served to increase the accident rate since the speed limit was lowered, the author cannot justifiably conclude that this safety effort has failed.
Thirdly, in the argument, the author implies that the higher speed limit in Butler County has not served to increase the incidence of road accidents in that county. It is entirely possible that the 55-mph speed limit actually serves to increase the accident rate on Butler's highways, but that others factors, such as stricter law enforcement measures or improved driver education, have served to decrease the accident rate to a greater extent. Without considering and ruling out these and other factors which might have served to decrease the accident rate in Butler County, the author cannot confidently recommend that Prunty County emulate Butler County’s approach to the problem.
In conclusion, to strengthen the argument, the author must better assess the impact of the new speed limit on road safety, with more statistical information about the accident rate on Prunty's major roads, collected over a longer time period. Additionally, the author must account for all other factors that might influence the accident rate on roads in both counties.
- This author argues that…（标志性的Argument开头段引出原文结论的语言表达形式。）Instead, urges the author… After a review of the assumptions therein, the integrity of the argument comes into question.（标志性的指出文章错误的语言表达。整体开头段是标准的C—A—F的语言和逻辑模版体系。）
- Firstly, only recently… Perhaps not enough time has passed to determine… Lacking such a link between the conclusions that… is invalidated.（标志性的时间过短导致样本类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。）
- Secondly, the argument assumes that… However, the author fails to provide evidence to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that… while some other factor, such as… Without considering and ruling out these and other factors that… the author cannot justifiably conclude that this safety effort has failed.（标志性的包含他因的因果类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。）
- Thirdly, in the argument, the author implies that… It is entirely possible that… but that others factors… Without considering and ruling out these and other factors which might have served to… the author cannot confidently recommend that…（标志性的包含他因的因果类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。）
- In conclusion, to strengthen the argument, the author must better assess… Additionally, the author must account for all other factors that… collected over a longer time period… with more statistical information about…（标志性的Argument结尾段Suggestion体系的语言和逻辑模版体系。）
本文的写作体现出了非常严谨的开头段—正文段1、2、3—结尾段的逻辑体系：（开头段）This author argues that…（正文段1）Firstly, only recently…（正文段2）Secondly, the argument assumes that… However…（正文段3）Thirdly, in the argument, the author implies that…（结尾段）In conclusion, to strengthen the argument, the author must… Additionally, the author must account for… 特别注意的是，本文的第二段攻击的是样本类错误，而第三段和第四段攻击的都是原文当中的因果类逻辑错误。这样的写法，能够清晰的体现这篇文章对于逻辑错误的攻击顺序是非常清晰的：先攻击样本类错误，接着攻击因果类错误，并对原文中的因果类错误进行了拆分，即分别分析限速政策对Prunty和Butler地区交通事故的不同影响作用。