You can not determine the worth of a conclusion until you identify the reasons.
Reasons provide answers for our human curiosity about why someone makes a particular decision or holds a particular opinion. Reasons are explanations or rationales for why we
should believe a particular conclusion.
Reasons are " Evidence ", " Analogies ", " Authority ", " Statistics ", " Metaphors " ,
" Beliefs ", " Causes ", " Deductive ", and other statements offered to support or justify conclusions. They are the statement that together form the basis for creating the credibility
of a conclusion.
Reasons + Conclusions = Argument
To give an argument means to offer a set of reasons or evidence in support of a conclusion.
Consequently, only arguments and reasoning can be logically flawed. Because a reason by itself is an isolated idea, it can not reflect a logical relationship.
Words that Identify Reasons :
as a result of, for the reason that
because of the fact that in view of
is supported by because the evidence is
The two following articles are about " Speed Limit ". Try to paraphrase the reason.
In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from 55 mph to 45 on all 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 Bulter County completed five years ago : increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads. Today, major Bulter County roads still have 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Bulter County this past than there were 5 years ago.
Issue:
- Should we restore 55 mph limit ??
- Should we undertake the same kind of road improvement project like Bulter County ??
- The 55 mph limit should be restored.
- We should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Bulter County completed five years ago, increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads.
- The safety effort - lowering the speed limit from 55 mph to 445 mph on all major county roads in Prunty County has failed. Most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly.
- Bulter County completed a road improvement project five years ago : increasing land widths and resurfacing tough roads. Today, major Bulter County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Bulter County this past year than there were five years ago.
2. Speed Limit for Vehicles in the Forestville.
Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highway by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobiles accidents in that region has increases by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-months period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should compaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what
it was before the increase.
Essay Response : ETS official Argument Example. ( Score 6 )
The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of the region of Forestville, the town with the higher speed limit and therefore automobiles accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit subsequently fewer accidents, the argument for reducing Forestville's speed limits in order to decrease accidents seems logical.
However, the citizens of Forestville are failing to consider other possible alternatives to the increasing car accidents after the raise in speed limit. Such alternatives may include the fact that there are less reliable cars traveling the roads in Forestville, or that the age bracket of those in Elmsford may be more conducive to driving safely. Is is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced, or more elderly, unsafe drivers in Forestville than there are in Elmsford. In addition, the citizens have failed to consider the geographical and physical terrain of two different areas. Perhaps Forestville's highway is in an area of more dangerous curves, sharp turns,or has many intersections or merging points where accidents are likely to occur. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the citizens to focus on these trouble spots than to reduce the speed in the entire area. Elmford may be an area of easier driving conditions where accidents are less likely to occur regardless of the speed limit.
A six-month period is not a particular long time frame for the citizens to determine that speed limit has influenced the number of automobile accidents in the area. It is mentioned in the argument that Elmford accidents decreased during the time period. This may have been a time, such as during harsh weather conditions, when less people were driving on the road and therefore the number of accidents decreased. However, Forestville citizens, perhaps coerced by employment or other requirements, were unable to avoid driving on the road. Again, the demographics of the population are important. It is possible that Elmford citizens do not have to travel far from work or work from their home, or do not work at all. Are there more people in Forestville than there were six months ago ?? If so, there may be an increased number of accidents due to more automobiles on the road, and not due to the increased speed limit. Also,in reference to the activities of the population, it is possible that Forestville inhabitants
were traveling during less safe of the day, such as early in the morning, or during twilight.
Work or family habits may have encouraged citizens to drive during this time when Elmford residents may not have been forced to do so.
Overall, the reasoning behind decreasing Forestville's speed limit back to its original seems logical as presented above since the citizens are acting in their own best interests and want to protect their safety. However, before any final decisions are made about the reduction in speed limit, the citizens and officials of Forestville should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the increased number of accidents over the six-month period as compared to Elmford.
Commentary for Essay Response :
This outstanding response begins by noting that the argument is " well-presented " . It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides on impressively full analysis.
Alternatives mentioned are that :
(1) the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
(2) Forestville's topography, geograpgy, cars, and/or roads might contribute accidents;
(3) six month might be an insufficient amount of time for determining that the speed limit isbuilt here, Scott Woods would continue benefit our community as as natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider the issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There is no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland.
Essay Response : ETS official Argument Example. ( Score 6 )
This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep
Scott Woods in an undeveloped state. The letter states that the entire community could benefit
form an undeveloped parkland. The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping
centers or houses would be built there. this, in turn, would provide everyone in the community
with a valuable resource, natural park.
The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land. The author
reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the
land would be depping centers or
houses were built here, Scott Woods would continue benefit our community as as natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider the issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There is no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland.
Essay Response : ETS official Argument Example. ( Score 6 )
This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep
Scott Woods in an undeveloped state. The letter states that the entire community could benefit
form an undeveloped parkland. The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping
centers or houses would be built there. this, in turn, would provide everyone in the community
with a valuable resource, natural park.
The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land. The author
reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the
land would be devoted to athletic fields. The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that
building a school on a land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.
The letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. The
author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a
school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. Regardless of who the
author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.
Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland. While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school. The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community. What interest do they have in a new school ?? It only means higher taxes for them to pay. They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything. On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy natural beauty and peacefulness. The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.
Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park. What about children who don't play sports ?? Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything. A playing field is a playing field. Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports. There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports. This is yet anther group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.
The author's conclusion that " there would be no better use of the land in our community that this..." is easily arguable. The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton, it would affect who would and wold not be able to utilize the space. If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision. The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would.The whole of the vote was to keep the land as as asset for everyone. The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state. using the land for a school does not accomplish this.
Commentary for Essay Response :
The outstanding response begins somewhat hesitantly; the opening paragraphs summarize but not immediately engage the argument. However, the subsequent paragraphs target the central flaws in the argument and analyze them in almost microscopic details.
The writer's main rebuttal points out that " using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for natural parkland ." Several subpoints develop this critique offering perceptive reasons to counter the argument's unsubstantial assumptions. This is linked to a related discussion that pointedly expose another piece of faculty reasoning : that using land for athletic fields " rationalizes the destruction of the park ".
The extensively developed and organically organized analysis continues into a final paragraph that takes issue with the argument's conclusion that " there would be no better use of land in our community than this ".
Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated, and the writer is fully in control of the standard
conventions. While there may be stronger papers that merit a score of 6,this response demonstrates insightful analysis, cogent development, and mastery of writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment