[HELP!] I would appreiciate any feedback on my arguement. Thanks so Much!!!

[BetaTest]

Prompt:

The following appeared in a report to the governor of the state of New Manchester:

“Of the 500 serious traffic accidents that have occurred in our state over the past 10 months, 65 percent have involved 16-year-old drivers. Obviously, 16-year-olds do not have the emotional maturity needed to be safe drivers. The best solution is to pass a law requiring our citizens to be at least 18 years old before they can obtain a driver’s license.”

Response:

The author concludes that 16-year-old drivers do not have the emotional maturity needed to be safe drivers and that this issue would be resolved by increasing the driving age to 18 years of age. The author supports this conclusion with the evidence that 65 percent of the serious accidents in the past 10 months involved 16-year-old drivers. However, this argument is flawed because it relies on several unsupported assumptions.

One major flaw in the author's argument is that is assumes that 18-year-olds have more emotional maturity than 16-year-olds, and this this additional maturity is enough to safely be able to drive. More specifically, it assumes that 16-year-olds who lack emotional maturity would develop it by the time they turned 18 years old. If the author was able to provide evidence about the emotional maturity of 18-year-olds, the author still would not be able to discount the effect that serious accidents have on the emotional development of 16-year-olds.

Additionally the author assumes that the larger amount of accidents due to 16-year-old drivers is due to emotional maturity and not due to inexperience driving. If 16-year-olds have more accidents because they are still learning to drive, then that learning phase would just be passed on to 18-year-old drivers and greatly weaking the author's argument.

If that author presented evidence that showed drivers who began driving at 18-year-old or older were as safe as other drivers in their age group. This evidence would clearly show that the large number of accidents caused by 16-year-old drivers was due to their lack of emotional maturity and not because of their inexperience. This evidence, if true, would greatly strengthen the author's position.

Without clear evidence showing the number of accidents caused by 16-year-old drivers was due to lack of emotional maturity and not due to inexperience, the author fails to make the argument effectively. Additionally, the author would also have to show that 18-year-old drivers posses the emotional maturity necessary to drive safely. Without these assumptions being address this argument fails to persuade.

[saloca7]

Nice, I think it is a high level response may be 4.5-5.5

I didn't like these :

If the author was able to provide evidence about the emotional maturity of 18-year-olds, the author still would not be able to discount the effect that serious accidents have on the emotional development of 16-year-olds.

Without these assumptions being address this argument fails to persuade.

Please rate mine
http://www.urch.com/forums/gre-analy...ate-yours.html (Technology creates more problems than it solves, Rate mine and I will rate yours)
&
http://www.urch.com/forums/gre-analy...tml#post832331 (Please rate mine & I will rate yours)