[ekitten]

Folks, thank you for reviewing my essay; I sit for the exam on 7/15, so am mostly looking for moral support at this point. Thanks!

Argument: 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.

An argument is presented to campaign to reinstate the speed limit of Forestville in order to decrease the number of automobile accidents. However, the claims are specious, reflecting no less than three commonly held logical fallacies. No cogent correlation between the rise in accidents and the drop in speed limit is presented, neither is a convincing analogy between the Forestville and Elmsford ever established, and additionally, the notion that the problem may be solved via campaigning has not been sufficiently expounded.

First, a drop in speed limit would not, intuitively, cause a rise in accidents, and the argument presents no data to refute this instinctive conclusion. The reader is left to wonder if the cause of the rise is some outside force, such as a rise in new drivers or a change in road conditions. This also implies that perhaps the speed limit was dropped in the first place in anticipation of a possibly even more precipitous acclivity in accident rates. The author of the argument should address why the change was made in the first place. The author also needs to refute the aphorism that slower speed entails fewer accidents. Without better developing a correlation between speed and accident rate, the argument appears to suffer from the logical fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc": "before this, therefore because of this".

Second, the argument compares Forestville to Elmsford. No evidence is provided, however, on demographics or road conditions in Elmsford. Are the roads under consideration analogous? Perhaps the speed limits are different, or Elmsford roads are straighter and better lit. Perhaps Forestville's drivers are older or less experienced. This should be addressed lest the argument fall prey to the "false analogy" fallacy.

Third, the argument does not appear to solve the problem presented. The author calls for campaigning to return the limit to previous levels, but there is no assurance that such a campaign would have any result. Furthermore, perhaps another alternative would be more desirable. An argument might be made to return the limit to some other level between the initial and current speed limits. Furthermore, the time spent on campaigning might be more usefully spent on building safer road conditions. The arguer should address these possibilities to avoid the "false dilemma" fallacy.

The author would make a better argument if the logical fallacies propounded here were addressed. For example, evidence should be provided to establish a link between the speed limit change and the accident rise. Additionally, details of the roads and driver populations held in comparison should be provided. Finally, alternative solutions should be presented and argued against to provide better incentive to campaign for these results. With the addition of these data, the argument will be strengthened.