Argument

[mallelac]

Could you correct my following timed response to the argument? Please feel free to correct it from all angles - breadth, depth, grammar etc.

"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."

The argument has the premises from which hasty conclusions are drawn. The argument says that six months ago, the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles travelling on the region's highway by 10 mph. Since then, the automobile accidents increased by 15 percent. The speed limit in the neighbouring Elmsford, remained unchanged and the automobile accidents declined slighlty during the same period observation. Thus, the final conclusion of the argument was an appeal to the citizens of Forestville to reduce the speed limit to reduce the number of accidents.

Infact, it is not clear from the argument whether the speed limits of both the places were the same before the change took place in Forestville. It may be the case that after the increase in speed limit in Forestville, the speed limit might be equal to that in Elmsford. Thus, it is unfair to compare the accdient rates between these two places based on speed limits.

Also, speed alone cannot be a major accident causing factor. Going at a very high speed on an empty road may not cause any accidents. The accidents to some extent are caused by high speed coupled with traffic density. The argument never talks about the traffic density increase during the period of observation in both the places. In the neighboring Elmsford, the accidents may have gone up with the unchanged speed limit but the traffic density may also have gone up thus leading to the decline in the percentage.

Sometimes, the number of accidents may remain the same in Forestville but the total number of automobiles going on the mentioned highway might have become less during the period of observation. This spurts up the percentage but the accidents never really increased.

Also, the author does not mention about the road and climactic conditions to strengthen the argument. Worsening of the driving conditions on the highway in Forestville may lead to more accidents. Then the speed limit reduction may help in reducing the accidents. The driving conditions in both the places have to be compared in order to make the final appeal to the citizes of Forestville.

Thus, the appeal to the people of of Forestville to reduce the speed limit to reduce the number of accidents is very hasty on the part of author, based on the inconclusive evidences he has presented. The author should corroborate his argument by providing more statistics in terms of the traffic density observed in both the places, the driving conditions, the speed limits in both the places and his mathematical ways of arriving at the percentages.

[milenka263]

In the first paragraph i feel that there is missing something that compelles the reader to agree with your opnion. After in the second paragraph you argue that both speed limits cannot be compared but here is the deal, you are falling into the most common mistake : you are failing to identify what is the prompt saying. Is not being discussed which is the best speed limit, but if a increase would lead to an increase in the number of accidents.