Please score my argument! GRE in 4 days

[grepsycho]

The following appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry.
"The Longhaul trucking company was concerned that its annual accident rate (the number of accidents per mile driven) was too high. It granted a significant pay increase to its drivers and increased its training standards. It also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive. The following year, its trucks were involved in half the number of accidents as before the changes were implemented. A survey of other trucking companies found that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident. Therefore, trucking companies wishing to reduce their accident rate can do so simply by raising their drivers' pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive."


The writer of the passage concluded that all trucking companies should increase their drivers' salary and limit the number of hours they drive in order to reduce the likelihood of accidents. Although the argument may be specious at first-sight, in-depth evaluation will reveal the invalidity of the premises that support the argument.

First, the writer assumed that the reduction in accident rate in Longhaul trucking company was directly caused by the increase in pay and decrease in work hours. However, this reduction could have been caused by many other reasons, such as a decrease in traffic flow in the area that Longhaul company operated. If the year during which Longhaul company implemented the changes was in economic recession, the traffic flow would have decreased because less people commuted to workplace as companies laid off people. In addition, perhaps the reduction in accident was caused by a lack of maintenance of trucks. Poorly-maintained trucks involved in accidents may have been damaged so severely that they could no longer be used, and thus the year after, Longhaul workers drove trucks with fewer problems, resulting in fewer accidents. To strengthen the argument, the writer should evidence the economical context of the year in which the company implemented the pay raise and work hour reduction. The writer could also provide evidence of the similarity of the qualities of the trucks driven in that year.

Secondly, the writer assumed the survey of other truck companies proved that highest paid drivers were the safest drivers. Highest paid drivers often are those who have the most experience in the field, and thus they should logically be safer driver. However, this does not mean by increasing pay, drivers could become safer driver because an increase in pay does not lead to more experience. The writer could strengthen the argument by providing evidence that the increase in pay does indeed directly causes less accidents.

Finally, the writer concluded that all trucking companies wishing to reduce accident rate should increase pay rate and reduce work hours. However, the anecdotal evidence of the reduction of accidents in Longhaul trucking companies do not necessarily generalize to all trucking companies. If, for example, the reduction of accident rate in Longhaul companies was simply a matter of decreased traffic flow, then lowering the rate of accidents by increasing pay rate and reducing work hours would very likely be futile in other trucking companies. Similarly, the results of the survey, even if it suggested a causal relationship between increased pay and lowered accident rate, cannot be generalized to all trucking companies other than the companies included in the survey.

To conclude, despite the evidences shown by the writer, the argument cannot withstand critical evaluation. The writer could strengthen her argument by making more cautious generalization of survey results, refuting alternate explanations of the reduction of accident rates in Longhaul company, and providing critical evidence that proves the causal relationship between increased pay and reduced accident rate. If the writer includes the above, the argument would be much more substantiated.