写了作文之后，觉得作为author真的很作孽。
GRE作文告诉我们，author不是这么好当的，结论不是这么容易给出的。
比如。
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."
看起来人家author也挺有理有据的，不过我们非得把人家的理由反驳的面目全非。
比如。
In this argument, the author concludes that the newly-adopted speed limit ----55 miles per hour---- should be restored. To strengthen this conclusion, the author provides a statistics about the decrease in road accidents in Butler County after improving road condition. The author also cites supporting evidence that most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit to stress that the new speed limit is unsuccessful. At first glance, the argument might be somehow reasonable, but close scrutiny reveals that it contains several unconvincing assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.
First of all, the author observes a correlation between the new speed limit adopted in all major roads and the slight decreased accident rate all over the county, and then states that the former is the cause of the latter, which might not be the case. The author fails to consider the accident rate of some minor roads. It is possible that there is a dramatic increase of the road accident rate on minor roads where the new speed limit has not been adopted and a remarkable decrease of the accident rate on major roads where has been adopted, and hence the average accident rate throughout Prunty county has decreased only slightly. In such cases, the new speed limit is nothing but a success, which totally contradicts author's conclusion.
Second, even though assuming that the 55 mph speed limit is a failure, the argument still remains questionable. the author points out that what Butler County did five years ago to improve the road condition is responsible for the accident rate. However, the author fails to consider other alternative reasons of this decrease. Such alternatives may include that the Butler County government took a stricter and severer driving test five years ago, which obviously led to a high concentration of drivers while driving, and thus resulted in the decreasing of the road accidents. Or perhaps residents cannot afford to buy cars due to the financial crisis all over the world, so there is less traffic on the road and naturally there will be less risk of car accidents. Without ruling out these and other possible causes for the decline of traffic accidents in Butler County, the author cannot reasonably get a conclusion that the improved road situation is the only reason for the fewer reported accidents.
Third, even if I concede that the improvement project indeed is the only reason of the decrease of accident rate, the author's argument rests on the unsubstantiated assumption that Prunty County and Butler County are sufficiently alike in ways that might affect the accident rate. It is possible that it often rains in P and B enjoys a pleasant sunshine weather all the year. Thus it is easier for B's driver to travel on the road, which contributed to its accident rate. Without accounting for these and other possible differences between the two regions, the author cannot fairly get the conclusion that the improvement of road condition would be a success in P as well as in B.
To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the better road situation is the only explanation for the fewer reported accidents. It could be further improved by proving that the two regions are alike in driving and driver conditions.
比如。
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."
看起来人家author也挺有理有据的，不过我们非得把人家的理由反驳的面目全非。
比如。
In this argument, the author concludes that the newly-adopted speed limit ----55 miles per hour---- should be restored. To strengthen this conclusion, the author provides a statistics about the decrease in road accidents in Butler County after improving road condition. The author also cites supporting evidence that most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit to stress that the new speed limit is unsuccessful. At first glance, the argument might be somehow reasonable, but close scrutiny reveals that it contains several unconvincing assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive.
First of all, the author observes a correlation between the new speed limit adopted in all major roads and the slight decreased accident rate all over the county, and then states that the former is the cause of the latter, which might not be the case. The author fails to consider the accident rate of some minor roads. It is possible that there is a dramatic increase of the road accident rate on minor roads where the new speed limit has not been adopted and a remarkable decrease of the accident rate on major roads where has been adopted, and hence the average accident rate throughout Prunty county has decreased only slightly. In such cases, the new speed limit is nothing but a success, which totally contradicts author's conclusion.
Second, even though assuming that the 55 mph speed limit is a failure, the argument still remains questionable. the author points out that what Butler County did five years ago to improve the road condition is responsible for the accident rate. However, the author fails to consider other alternative reasons of this decrease. Such alternatives may include that the Butler County government took a stricter and severer driving test five years ago, which obviously led to a high concentration of drivers while driving, and thus resulted in the decreasing of the road accidents. Or perhaps residents cannot afford to buy cars due to the financial crisis all over the world, so there is less traffic on the road and naturally there will be less risk of car accidents. Without ruling out these and other possible causes for the decline of traffic accidents in Butler County, the author cannot reasonably get a conclusion that the improved road situation is the only reason for the fewer reported accidents.
Third, even if I concede that the improvement project indeed is the only reason of the decrease of accident rate, the author's argument rests on the unsubstantiated assumption that Prunty County and Butler County are sufficiently alike in ways that might affect the accident rate. It is possible that it often rains in P and B enjoys a pleasant sunshine weather all the year. Thus it is easier for B's driver to travel on the road, which contributed to its accident rate. Without accounting for these and other possible differences between the two regions, the author cannot fairly get the conclusion that the improvement of road condition would be a success in P as well as in B.
To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the better road situation is the only explanation for the fewer reported accidents. It could be further improved by proving that the two regions are alike in driving and driver conditions.
