▶ Your Answer :
In the given article, the author claims
that Prunty Count should follow the road improvement project of Burtler County
in order to make improvement on highway safety. While supporting the argument,
however, the author makes numerous assumptions which cannot be taken for
granted thus the argument remains largely unconvincing without further evidence
to verify unjustified assumptions.
To begin with, the author assumes that
lowered speed limit has been unsuccessful in
improving highway safety, but this may not be the case. A period of one year is insufficient to conclude with certainty that
the speed limit is ineffective. As there has
been transitional period for people to
adopt the policy, the reported result might be temporary phenomenon and it
requires longer term of observation with long-term
data to justify whether the new standard are effective to improve high safety
or not. In addition, even though the reported number of accidents has not been decreased,
the degree of violation possibly became
mitigated. For example, if the drivers were exceeding the speed limit having 46
mph, the seriousness of car accidents could possibly be reduced than before the
speed limitation were started. Thus, further evidence
pertaining to
long-term data and details about reported
accidents and violation is needed to
support the claim and assess it, as lack thereof significantly weakens the
argument.
Moreover, the argument relies on the
assumption that the road improvement has the causal relation with the success of
highway safety in Butler County. However, there might have been alternative causes for improved
highway safety. For example, it is possible that Butler’s each road has went
through less traffic than before as a number of
roads were newly constructed to meet the traffic volume and other government regulations such as enhancing the
fine for exceeding speed limit could have an effect on lowering the number of
car accident. Therefore, in order to
judge the argument, it is paramount to answer the
question if the advanced road
conditions is the direct cause for Butler’s success regarding highway safety.
Finally, the author assumes the
comparability between Prunty and
Butler’s situation without evidence thereof. Even though
the road improvements had good impacts on the butler’s highway safety, it does not
guarantee that the same measure will lead to the same degree of success. For example, if the major cause of car accidents
in Prunty has been sleepiness(drowsiness) while driving,
the road improvements might not help to reduce the possibility of car
accidents. Hence, further proof pertaining to the fact that there is no
significant difference in causation and details of car accidents between
two counties should
be provided to support the argument.
In conclusion, further evidence pertaining
to above assumptions is required for an adequate assessment and a more
persuasive argument.
|