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.
The agrument 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 automobile accidents, with the region of Elmsford, an area of a lower speed limit and 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. It 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 the 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 more 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. Elmsford 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 particularly 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 Elmsford 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 roads. Again, the demographics of the population are important. It is possible that Elmsford 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 sic 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 limits. Also in reference to the activities of the population, it is possible that Forestville inhabitants were traveling during less safe times 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 Elmsford 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 Elmsford.
This outstanding essay begins by noting that the argument "seems logical." It then proceeds to discuss possible alternative explanations for the increase in car accidents and provides an impressively full analysis. Alternatives mentioned are that
-- the two regions might have drivers of different ages and experience;
-- Forestville's topography, geography, cars, and/or roads might
contribute to accidents;
-- six months might be an insufficient amount of time for determining
that the speed limit is linked to the accident rate;
-- demographics might play a role in auto accidents;
-- population and auto density should be considered; and
-- the times of day when drivers in the two regions travel might be relevant.
The points are cogently developed and are linked in such a way as to create a logically organized essay. Transitions together with interior connections create a smoothly integrated presentation. For the most part, the writer uses language correctly and well and provides excellent variety in syntax. The minor flaws (e.g., using "less" instead of "fewer") do not detract from the overall high quality of the critique. This is an impressive 6 paper.
The argument above presents a sound case for arguing that if the region of Forestville wants to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should consider reducing the speed limit to what it was before the increase in speed limit took place 6 months previously. However, there are some intermediate steps that one could take before jumping to the conclusion that reducing the speed limit is the only way in which traffic accidents can be reduced.
First of all, I would examine the actual number of traffic accidents that occurred before and after the speed limit increase and compare this to the size of the region and its driving population. For example, if the Forestville region's driving population is 1 million people, and the traffic accidents for a 6-month period before the speed increase totaled 100, then the 15% increase would amount to an additional 16 traffic accidents, or 116 total. For a population of 1 million, there may be other solutions to this increase besides reducing the speed limit to what it was. (The comparison to the region of Elmsford would only be helpful if the regions driving demography is comparable in terms of size and scope.) A public education campaign emphasizing driver safety and safe driving techniques may suffice to reduce the number of traffic accidents. Especially considering that if the number of accidents relative to the population is somewhat small, it is a fairly safe driving population anyway.
In addition, I would consider lengthening the time of the study. Six months may be a relatively short period of time for which to study the rate of traffic accidents. Upon a closer examination of when the accidents occurred, one might ascertain that most of the driving accidents occurred within a month of raising the speed limit, but that there have been relatively few additional accidents since that first phase-in period. Lengthening the study to a one-year period would help adjust for any untypical statistics and paint a more accurate picture of the long-term affects of the speed limit increase.
I would also examine what else was occurring in the region during the period of the study. For example, was there a major highway construction project happening during this time which would have added to the unsafe nature of raod travel? Are there any alternative explanations for why the increase in traffic accidents could have occurred, or is the increase in speed limit the sole variable? Looking at the type of accidents that occurred, I would examine whether these are the types of car accidents one would expect from traveling at a faster speed to corroborate the cause and effect relationship.
As in the sample 6 essay, this writer sees some logic in assuming a connection between the higher speed limit in Forestville and the increase in auto accidents. Unlike the sample 6 essay, this response is neither as exhaustive in its analysis nor as impressively developed. The writer makes these points in the critique:
-- A statistical analysis might suggest that the 15% increase in
accidents is not as significant as it might seem.
-- A car safety education campaign might be a better way to solve the
-- A six month period might be too short a time on which to base major
-- Other factors could have caused the increase in accidents.
Although each of these points is developed and sensibly supported, the critique is not sufficiently full to warrant a score of 6. The essay demonstrates good control but not mastery of the elements of writing: it contains good variety in syntax, including effective use of rhetorical questions. The occasional flaws (e.g., the somewhat garbled syntax in paragraph 3: ime for which to study the rate???") do not detract from the overall strong quality of the essay. For all of these reasons, this critique is strong but not outstanding, and thus merits a score of 5
At first look, this seems to be a very well presented arguement. A logical path is followed throughout the paragraph and the conclusion is expected. However, upon a second consideration, it is apparent that all possibilities were not considered when the author presented his conclusion (or at least that s/he did not present all of the possibilities). There are numerous potential explanations for why the number of accidents in Elmsford decreased while the number in Forestville increased. Although it seems logical to assume that the difference in the percentage of accidents was due to the difference in whether or not the speed limit had been increased during the specified month, this does not necessarily mean that the speed limit should be reduced back to what it originally was in Forestville. The author does not state two specific pieces of information that are important before a conclusion such as the one the author made is sound. The first is that it is not expressed whether the speed limits in the two neighboring regions had had the same speed limit before Forestville's speed limit had been increased. If they had originally been the same, then it is reasonable to conclude that Forestville's speed limit should be reduced back to what it was before the increase. However, if the two region's speed limits were initially different, then such a conclusion can not be made. The second piece of information that is necessary for the present argument is the relative number of accidents in each of the areas prior to the increase in speed limit. For the author to make the presented conclusion, the number of accidents should have been approximately equal prior to the increase in the speed limit in Forestville. If the two missing pieces of information had been presented and were in the author's favor, then the conclusion that the author made would have been much more sound than it currently is. In conclusion, the argument is not entirely well reasoned, but given the information that was expressed in the paragraph, it was presented well, and in a logical order.
This competent critique claims that there are "numerous potential explanations for why the number of accidents in Elmsford decreased while the number in Forestville increased." However, the author discusses only two points:
-- whether the speed limits in the two regions were originally the same;
-- the number of accidents in each region prior to Forestville's
raising the speed limit.
Although the essay appears at first to be well developed, there is much less analysis here than the length would suggest. The first third and last third of the essay are relatively insubstantial, consisting mainly of general summary statements (e.g., "A logical path??? conclusion is expected" and "If the two??? more sound than it currently is"). The real heart of the critique consists of minimal development of the two points mentioned above. Therefore, although two important features of the argument are analyzed and the writer handles language and syntax adequately, the lack of substantial development keeps this critique from earning a score higher than 4.
This argument does not have any concrete information. It seems by Forestville, increasing their speed limit more accidents occured. We all know that accidents occur reguardless of what the speed limit of the highway we travel. Fortunately, Elmsford's accidents decreased during the six-months in discussion. This could be because of good weather, careful drivers, or any number of situations. On the other hand, Forrestville had an increase in accidents. The only determining factor given was the speed limit increasing. This in fact probably did play a big role in why there was a 15% percent increase in the accidents, but may not be the only factor. In order to make an accurate judgement on why there was an increase in automobile accidents the situation needs to be researched. Solid facts need to be stated. Clearly, to reduce the speed limit back to normal in Forrestville would not eliminate the problem.
This limited critique is plainly flawed. The author begins with a criticism about the lack of "concrete information" but then fails to provide any concrete analysis in the essay. The writer cites the drop in Elmsford's accidents but does not develop any of the reasons mentioned to account for the drop: "good weather, careful drivers, or any number of situations."
The writer then goes on to discuss Forestville and suggests that the speed limit "may not be the only factor," but this point is not developed either. The author issues a generic call for more research and facts and offers an unsupported conclusion of his or her own: "Clearly, to reduce the speed limit??? would not eliminate the problem." Although the author appears to know that there is something wrong with the argument, he or she does not seem to know how to critique the argument in greater detail.
The response demonstrates adequate control of the elements of writing, but the analysis is so underdeveloped that it cannot earn a score higher than 3.
The argument gives statistics of increases in automobile accidents since the speed limit increased six months ago on the highways of Forestville. The argument also gives a statement of how the neighboring region of Forestville, did not increase or decrease the speed limit. It remained unchanged and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. The argument may appeal to those who have been effected by the increase in accidents, but it does not give an emotional appeal overall. We are relying on the authors statistics but we don't know where they came from and if they are reliable. The argument needs more examples and illustrations to get his point across to more people. It is suggested that the citizens of Forestville campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase, but it is usually hard to start a campaign. One person needs to take action. If the author is a citizen of Forestville, maybe he should take the initiative.
This seriously flawed critique presents only one idea relevant to an analysis of the argument topic: "The argument needs more examples and illustrations to get his point across to more people." Everything else in the essay is either summarizing the argument, speculating, or offering advice. The result is an essay that is clearly on topic but that provides no analysis of the line of reasoning in the argument.
In addition to the lack of analysis, the writing is weak. The organization is loose, although not illogical, and intended meaning is sometimes unclear (e.g., ".??燽ut it does not give an emotional appeal overall."). For these reasons, the essay deserves a score of 2 according to the scoring guide.
When we compare two things, we like to put them on the same background. same condition.
For the fact given above, in the same time, foundmentally, the two region have the same traffic condition, except, the speedlimit is improved in one, and the other keep the same. So we can get the result that the reason of the difference is that the improved speed limit. And also the change will give some other inconvinent to the people there. For example, the people will not familiar with the change, have some problem in handle the speed.
So, what I think is that the citizen should show the government the statistic number of the difference. Argue with them.
This essay is fundamentally deficient as a critique for two reasons:
-- although the writer has relied heavily on the language of the prompt,it is clear that the writer has no real control of language, and
-- there is little or no evidence of the writer's ability to develop an organized response.