در صورتی که اشکالی در ترجمه می بینید می توانید از طریق شماره زیر در واتساپ نظرات خود را برای ما بفرستید
09331464034
Topic:
The following appeared in a health newsletter.
"A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that number is nearly 80 percent. Another study, however, suggests that during the same ten-year period, the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent. These results demonstrate that bicyclists feel safer because they are wearing helmets, and they take more risks as a result. Thus, to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents, the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
موارد زیر در یک خبرنامه سلامت منتشر شده است.
یک مطالعه ده ساله در سراسر کشور در مورد اثربخشی استفاده از کلاه ایمنی هنگام دوچرخه سواری نشان می دهد که ده سال پیش، تقریبا 35 درصد از کل دوچرخه سواران استفاده از کلاه ایمنی را گزارش کرده اند، در حالی که امروز این تعداد نزدیک به 80 درصد است. با این حال مطالعه دیگر نشان می دهد که در طول در همین ده سال، تعداد تصادفات مربوط به دوچرخه 200 درصد افزایش یافته است. این نتایج نشان می دهد که دوچرخه سواران از اینکه از کلاه ایمنی استفاده می کنند، احساس امنیت بیشتری می کنند و در نتیجه خطرات بیشتری را متحمل می شوند. "بنابراین، برای کاهش تعداد آسیب های جدی ناشی از حوادث دوچرخه سواری، دولت باید بیشتر به آموزش مردم در مورد ایمنی دوچرخه و کمتر به تشویق یا الزام دوچرخه سواران به استفاده از کلاه ایمنی بپردازد."
پاسخی بنویسید که در آن مفروضات بیان شده و / یا بی دلیل را بررسی می کنید. حتماً توضیح دهید که چگونه استدلال به این فرضیات بستگی دارد و در صورت عدم اثبات فرضیات، چه برداشتی از استدلال خواهد شد.
NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Tasks 116 and 118 of this Website. However, if you read carefully you will notice that the topic and the task instructions are different. Hence, it is very important to read the topic as well as its instructions completely before you start to write your response.
NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Tasks 116 and 118 of this Website. However, if you read carefully you will notice that the topic and the task instructions are different. Hence, it is very important to read the topic as well as its instructions completely before you start to write your response.
Sample 1:
The above article appeared in a health newsletter. The arguer wants to suggest that in order to reduce serious injuries inflicted from bicycle accidents, the government should lay more emphasis on educating people about bicycle safety rather than encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets. The arguer presents various arguments in support of his recommendation. The first argument presented by the arguer is a nationwide study which indicates that ten years ago 35 percent bicyclists were using helmets and which has increased to 80 percent in the recent time. The arguer further mentions that according to another study in spite of increase in the number of bicyclists using helmets the accident rate has increased by 200 percent. The second argument which the arguer presents is that after wearing helmets bicyclists feel safer and that’s why they take more risks and thus more accidents are caused. The arguments presented by the arguer are without any substantial evidence.
The first argument presented by the arguer is absolutely baseless. It is based on a nationwide study. The study brings out the fact that more number of bicyclists in the recent times were using helmets as compared to the bicyclists of older times. In spite of more present bicyclists using helmets the accident rates have increased drastically. The arguer has not mentioned in his argument whether all accidents were caused by those bicyclists who were wearing helmets. It is very much possible that the rise in the accident rates is due to the increased traffic on roads. The arguer fails to mention the condition of the roads as bad roads can lead to more accidents. The arguer also fails to mention whether the trend of accident was more in a certain time period or consistent throughout. If the accidents were more in a certain time period it could be due to some natural calamities like heavy rain. The arguer fails to show any relation between more bicyclists wearing helmets and increased accident rates. It is very much possible that accidents were caused by bicyclists who were not wearing helmets.
The second argument that the arguer gives in support of his suggestion is the feeling of safety that a bicyclist feels after wearing a helmet which makes them more accident prone. This assumption by the arguer is absolutely insignificant. The arguer has not mentioned any incident to support his viewpoint that bicyclists took extra risks after wearing helmets. The arguer has not mentioned that the accidents were caused by those bicyclists who took more risk rather than those bicyclists who did not take any risk. This assumption of the arguer is very weird and does not have any substantial support.
The arguer has not been able to justify his stand. The arguer has not presented us with relevant arguments in support of his stand. The arguer also fails to establish a relation between causes of accidents with more number of bicyclists wearing helmets. The arguer has not mentioned whether bicyclists were educated about safety rules earlier or not. The arguer seems to be very confused in his recommendations.
نظرات کاربران
هنوز نظری درج نشده است!
