GRE寫作官方題庫高頻ARGUMENT題目滿分范文分享：attempt to improve highway safety

　　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.

　　【滿分范文賞析】

　　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.

　　【本段結構】

　　本文采用了標準的Argument開頭段結構，即C—A—F的開頭結構。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后簡要提及原文為支持其結論所引用的一系列Assumption及細節(jié)，最后給出開頭段到正文段的過渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即這些Assumption無法讓原文邏輯上沒有問題。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為Argument開頭段，本段具體功能就在于發(fā)起攻擊并概括原文的結論，即Prunty地區(qū)應當采取和Butler地區(qū)相同的道路設施改善計劃。本段接下來提到了原文中為支持之前的Conclusion所提供的證據(jù)，即在Prunty地區(qū)采取的限速政策沒效果，以及在Butler地區(qū)采取的道路設施改善計劃減少了事故。文章提及這些信息，為是在正文段中對這些Assumption即將進行的具體攻擊做鋪墊。

　　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.

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即先是提及原文的第一個邏輯錯誤，之后分析該邏輯錯誤的原因，接下來，進一步分析這樣的錯誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第一段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第一個重要邏輯錯誤——樣本類錯誤。原文提到在采取限制速度一年后，Pruntly地區(qū)的事故發(fā)生率沒有下降。但是，這些樣本并不一定有說服力，畢竟，短短的一年時間并不能讓人們看到這個限速政策的實際效果。所以，原文當中的這個觀點是站不住腳的。

　　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.

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即先是提及原文的第二個邏輯錯誤，之后分析該邏輯錯誤的原因，接下來，進一步分析這樣的錯誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第二段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第二個重要邏輯錯誤——因果類錯誤。原文提到在采取限制速度后，Pruntly地區(qū)的事故發(fā)生率沒有下降。但是，原文忽視了可能造成事故的其它因素。而相比之下，限速政策實際上有助于避免交通事故的發(fā)生。在沒有考慮到這些相關因素的情況下，原文并不能證明這個觀點是合理的。

　　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.

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即先是提及原文的第三個邏輯錯誤，之后分析該邏輯錯誤的原因，接下來，進一步分析這樣的錯誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第三段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第三個重要邏輯錯誤——因果類錯誤。原文提到在Butler地區(qū)沒有采取限速政策并不會給當?shù)氐慕煌ㄊ鹿蕩碡撁娴挠绊憽５聦嵣?，這樣的因果關系可能被顛倒了。相比之下，如果采取了限速，Butler地區(qū)可能會更安全。在沒有考慮到這些相關因素的情況下，原文當中的這個觀點是不合邏輯的。

　　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

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用的Argument結尾段結構是單純的Suggestion結構。即本段給出了可以增強原文說服力的合理建議Suggestion，包括原文作者需要進一步提供的證據(jù)和信息等。

　　【本段功能】

　　本段作為Argument結尾段，具體功能為對原文當中的邏輯問題提出建議。段落給出合理的建議包括：作者必須通過更多的統(tǒng)計信息，更好地評估限速政策和道路安全的關系，而且這些信息是在長期觀察下得來的結果;此外，作者必須考慮到能對交通事故產(chǎn)生影響的其它相關因素。不難發(fā)現(xiàn)，結尾段總結提出的建議與正文各段中依次攻擊的錯誤遙相呼應，即分別對應了樣本類錯誤和因果類錯誤，這使全篇文章顯得渾然一體。