The following appeared in an editorial in a local newspaper.

"Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists ‘lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic.

Opponents note that last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. Their suggested alternative proposal is adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. Bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, it is argued, thereby reducing rush-hour traffic."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

以下內(nèi)容出現(xiàn)在當(dāng)?shù)匾患覉?bào)紙的社論中。

“通勤者抱怨說(shuō)，郊區(qū)和市中心之間的藍(lán)色高速公路高峰時(shí)段交通量增加，使他們的通勤時(shí)間增加了一倍。駕車者游說(shuō)團(tuán)最喜歡的建議是拓寬高速公路，增加一條額外的交通車道。

反對(duì)者指出，去年在附近的綠色高速公路上增加了一條車道，但隨后交通擁堵卻加劇了。 他們建議的替代方案是在藍(lán)色高速公路上增加一條自行車道。 許多地區(qū)的居民都熱衷于騎自行車。 有人認(rèn)為，自行車道將鼓勵(lì)他們使用自行車上下班，從而減少高峰時(shí)段的交通?！?/p>

寫一份回復(fù)，討論需要回答哪些問題才能確定建議及其所依據(jù)的論點(diǎn)是否合理。 請(qǐng)務(wù)必解釋這些問題的答案將如何幫助評(píng)估建議。

In the editorial from the local newspaper, it is stated that opponents of the motorists ‘lobby’s plan to add another lane to Blue Highway have instead advocated that a bicycle lane be constructed in order to alleviate the highway's traffic issues. The opponents have come to this conclusion based on the issues faced by Green Highway last year as well as the keen interest in bicycling of the area's local residents. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, three questions must be answered.

當(dāng)?shù)貓?bào)紙的社論稱，駕車者游說(shuō)團(tuán)計(jì)劃在藍(lán)色高速公路上增設(shè)一條車道的計(jì)劃的反對(duì)者轉(zhuǎn)而主張修建一條自行車道，以緩解高速公路的交通問題。 反對(duì)者基于去年綠色公路面臨的問題以及該地區(qū)當(dāng)?shù)鼐用駥?duì)騎自行車的濃厚興趣得出了這一結(jié)論。 然而，在正確評(píng)估此建議之前，必須回答三個(gè)問題。

First of all, are Green Highway and Blue Highway roughly comparable? In other words, can circumstances from one highway be used to make generalizations and predictions about the other? It is possible that Green Highway and Blue Highway are not similar at all-perhaps Green Highway runs through residential neighborhoods, whereas Blue Highway is located mostly in rural, unpopulated sections of the city. Further, there is a possibility that the quality of the highways is markedly different, with Green Highway's roads falling apart and Blue Highway's in pristine condition. If either of these scenarios has merit, then conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.

首先，綠色公路和藍(lán)色公路大致可比嗎？ 換句話說(shuō)，一條高速公路的情況是否可以用來(lái)對(duì)另一條高速公路進(jìn)行概括和預(yù)測(cè)？ 綠色高速公路和藍(lán)色高速公路可能根本不相似——也許綠色高速公路穿過居民區(qū)，而藍(lán)色高速公路主要位于城市的農(nóng)村、無(wú)人居住的地區(qū)。 此外，高速公路的質(zhì)量可能存在顯著差異，綠色高速公路的道路已經(jīng)支離破碎，而藍(lán)色高速公路的道路仍處于原始狀態(tài)。 如果這兩種情況中的任何一種都有道理，那么原始論證中得出的結(jié)論就會(huì)被大大削弱。

Secondly, do a majority of the area residents interested in biking live within biking distance of their places of employment? The opponents in the argument prematurely assume that many of the residents in the town will bike to work in the morning rather than drive their cars. However, this might not be the case. Perhaps the average distance from home to work is over 15 miles, and that's why many of the residents are essentially obligated to take the highway-even if they don't want to. In an ideal world, they might choose to bike to work, but if the reality is such that they cannot do so due to the logistics of their situations, then only one form of transportation (the car via the highway) is possible. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.

其次，大多數(shù)對(duì)騎自行車感興趣的地區(qū)居民是否居住在其工作地點(diǎn)的騎車距離范圍內(nèi)？ 爭(zhēng)論中的反對(duì)者過早地認(rèn)為該鎮(zhèn)的許多居民早上會(huì)騎自行車上班而不是開車。 然而，情況可能并非如此。 也許從家到工作地點(diǎn)的平均距離超過 15 英里，這就是為什么許多居民基本上有義務(wù)走高速公路——即使他們不愿意。 在理想的情況下，他們可能會(huì)選擇騎自行車上班，但如果現(xiàn)實(shí)情況是由于他們的情況而無(wú)法這樣做，那么只有一種交通方式（通過高速公路的汽車）是可能的。 如果上述情況屬實(shí)，那么這個(gè)論點(diǎn)就站不住腳。

In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer the three questions above and offer more evidence (perhaps in the form of a systematic research study),then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation to add a bike lane to Blue Highway.

總之，目前的論點(diǎn)由于依賴于幾個(gè)沒有根據(jù)的假設(shè)而存在很大的缺陷。 如果作者能夠回答上述三個(gè)問題并提供更多證據(jù)（也許以系統(tǒng)研究的形式），那么就有可能充分評(píng)估所提議的在藍(lán)色高速公路上添加自行車道的建議的可行性。