please review my issue

[lookingahead]

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.

The argument presents a classical case of the kind that "after a certain action,therefore because of the action" which is misleading.

There must be a more carefull analysis of the reasons for the increase in the number of automobile accidents, and the place where the accidents are taking place.For instance the speed limit is increased only on the regions highway but the number of accidents in the region as a whole have increased.The increased number of accidents could be at busy city centres or on roads that are not on the highway because of over crowding,violation of traffic rules or deteroration of driving conditions.This would mean the the increase in speed limit has little or no effect on the increase in the number of accidents.

Also there might be several other factors that could contribute to the increase in automobile accidents.For instance a change in several other policies concerning driving,the condition of the roads , and the deterioration of driving conditions due to seasonal changes etc could be a few.For example there will be more accidents in the rainy season because of bad roads, and less visibility.Hence a well studied break up of the number of accidents caused by each factor ( where the factors themselves are well studied ) , locational distribution etc ,of the accidents would help in ascertaining the exact cause or causes of the increasing automobile accidents.

Also a comparison with a neighbouring region Elmsford mentions that the percentage of accidents in Elmsford remains unchanged or even declining , this might not come to signify anything since the number or percentage of automobile accidents in Elmsford might have been too high in the first place and hence the constant or even slight decline in the accident rates signifies not a major improval.A comparitive analysis in terms of number of accidents per thousand cars , road conditions ,driving conditions etc would put more light on the problem at hand.

While the increase in the speed limit by a rather high value of ten miles per hour might have contributed to the increase in accidents better figures here will help the authors cause.In which case a tapered increase policy,of staggering the increase in two steps of 5 miles per hour might help.Also a rethinking of driving policies within the city might be needed.Hence the steps to decrease the accident rate need to be on the basis of the reasons for the increase in the accident rate.

Therefore , though the given argument might convince a naive reader it is essentially flawed and an inclusion of statistics and more studied reasons with a better comparitive analysis with Elmsford will be more helpful.Any policy decission should be taken after a more studied analysis of the issue.

[mystic87]

I dont think it is necessary for you to explicitly state the fallacy, but if you want to the proper name for it is "Post hoc ergo propter hoc".