新东方网络课堂：牛人gre作文模考5分范例

　　argument模考原文

　　Topic:Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.

　　Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.

　　Your Answer (Score: 5)

　　I find this argument problematic. The author has committed several serious fallacies in reasoning and his/her recommendation is unwarranted.

　　To begin with, the author fails to make a distinction between accidents in the region and those on the highways. He/She just mentions that the number of automobile accidents in the region of Forestville has increased 15 percent but does not tell us whether the number of accidents on the highways increased. Thus it is entirely possible that there were the same number of accidents on the highways but accidents happened in other regions of Forestville rocketed dramatically. Consequently the author should not conclude that the increased number of accidents is a result of the change in speed limit.

　　Even if we accept that the number of accidents on the highways of Forestville did increase, the author still fails to convince us that the increase could be exclusively attributed to the change in speed limit. There are many other factors that can result in more accidents. For example, it is possible that after the change took effect, the highways in Forestville have been much more heavily used than ever before and it is therefore not strange that the number of accidents increased. It is also possible that the increase of accidents is due to some changes in climate. Without ruling out these possibilities the author could not draw a sound conclusion.

　　In addition, the analogy drawn between Forestville and Elmsford cannot give strong support to the author's conclusion that it is the different speed limits on highways that give birth to different accident numbers. There is no information concerning the similarities and differences between these two regions. It is not impossible that these two region vary dramatically in climate and terrain. It is common sense that climate and terrain are closely related with accidents. Thus the analogy drawn between Forestville and Elmsford is unconvincing.

　　Last but not least, six months may not be long enough to guarantee the reliability of the statistics cited by the author. Maybe drivers need a longer period of time to get accustomed to the change in speed limit on highways. Maybe most car accidents occurred in winter and the six months used for statistics happened to include winter. Thus the statistics cited by the author are not so cogent. Perhaps the author could find the accident number on the highways of Forestville remains steady or even falls throughout a longer period of time.

　　In conclusion, the author's viewpoint, though seemingly well-supported, is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author should prove that it is the increased speed limit that caused the increased accident number with more concrete and specific evidences.