The reasons you give can be more logica and more rational . The numbering of your sentences makes it worse ( firstly , secondly etc..) .I advice you to read more essays .
all the best
Hi friends,pls rate the following argument essay that I have written and give me your feedbacks.Thank you!!!
The following appeared in a report to the governor of the state of New Manchester:
Of the 500 serious traffic accidents that have occured in our state over the past 10 months,65% 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 atleast 18 years old before they can obtain a driver`s license.
My argument essay:
The premise stated by the author for a law to be passed, requiring citizens to be atleast 18 years old to obtain a driver's license, in order to reduce the number of traffic accidents, seems logical at first glance. However on closer examination, the argument is fallacious, as it lacks evidence to support it.
First and foremost, the argument states that 16-year old drivers account for only 65% of the total serious traffic accidents. This implies that the remaining 35% of the accidents involve older and more experienced drivers. From this, it can be inferred that the law restricting the driver's minimum age to 18, can, at best, reduce the number of accidents and cannot eliminate these accidents completely. Hence, passing such a law to curb the number of accidents is not the best solution as indicated by the author.
Secondly, the argument gives no evidence that the accidents involving the 16-year old drivers occurred only due to the driver's incompetence. There might have been other factors such as poor weather conditions or faulty working condition of the vehicle's parts, that contributed to these accidents. In such cases, it would be unfair to attribute these accidents to the driver's inability. Also, the 16-year old drivers are less likely to be victims of drunken driving than their older counterparts.
Thirdly, the argument takes into account a period of only 10 months to generalize that 16-year old drivers caused more number of accidents. It is possible that the number of accidents involving 16-year olds might have been unusually high during this period. Statistics might have given a totally different picture if a larger sampling time had been considered. Hence, the author's suggestion of imposing new laws,based on the facts of a short period of 10 months, is fallacious.
Finally, the argument has no evidence to prove that the 18-year old drivers were better than their 16-year old counterparts. The very argument suggests that 35% of serious traffic accidents were due to drivers aged over 16. Hence, the law,enforcing drivers to be atleast 18 years old to obtain the driving license, is not the best solution as indicated by the author. A more pragmatic solution to this problem would be to test the driver on the basis of his/her driving skills and issue driving licenses,thereupon, based on their skill, rather than their age.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)