argument 18 大家指导一下吧
TOPIC: ARGUMENT18 - The following appeared in an editorial in a Prunty County newspaper.
"In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from 55 miles per hour to 45 on all major county roads. But the 55 mph limit should be restored, because this safety effort has failed. Most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly. If we want to improve the safety of our roads, we should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads. 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."
WORDS: 455
TIME: 00:54:42
DATE: 2008-8-21 13:30:34 张凯函
In this analysis the arguer attempts to convince us that Prunty County should increase land widths and resurfacing rough roads instead of lowered it speed limit from55 miles per hour to 45 on all major county roads. To substantiate the claim, the arguer provides the evidence that most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has only slightly. On the other hand, another piece of evidence presented to support the argument is that major Butler Country, at the same speed limit before, has fewer reported accidents. As it stands, this analysis is unconvincing for several critical flaws.
First of all, by concluding that Prunty County must lower speed limit or must increase land widths and resurfacing rough roads, the author commits a fallacy of 'false dilemma'. The author assumes that lower speed limit and increase land widths and resurfacing rough roads are the only available solutions to the problem. However lower speed limit and increase land widths and resurfacing rough roads are not necessarily mutually-exclusive alternatives. It is more likely that other factors might also contribute to the problem. For example, improve the stander of the driver who cause the accident most, may also decrease the accidents. If so, just lower speed limit and increase land widths and resurfacing rough roads would not solve the problem.
Secondly, the argument is base on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that Prunty Country should undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler Country completed five years ago. But the arguer does not provide any evidence that is indeed comparable. As we know, the two countries are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. In fact, there exist fundamental differences between them, such as the population, the situation of the major roads and so on. If the number of
accidents in Butler Country roads is so large that 25 percent fewer would still higher than that in Prunty County, the editor suggest that they should do what Butler Country did five years ago is unjustified. Therefore, even though the arguer proved effective in increasing land widths and resurfacing rough roads there is no guarantee that Prunty Country will work just as well for Butler Country.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it, the arguer must provide clearer evidence that the Prunty County has the same situation as Butler County has five years ago so that Prunty County undertake the same kind of road improvement project is effective. The arguer also should convince me that lower speed limit is entirely failed so they could take and the only way to decrease the accident is increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads.
