The following is a letter to the editor of the Waymarsh Times."Traffic here in Waymarsh is becoming a problem. Although just three years ago a state traffic survey showed that the typical driving commuter took 20 minutes to get to work, the commute now ta

The letter written to the editor of the Waymarsh Times suggests that a policy similar to that found in Garville can be implemented in Waymarsh to reduce the traffic flow. But author's argument rests upon unstated assumptions and it is filled with lack of evidence to support the quoted facts. Hence, the argument must be thoroughly analyzed before anyone happens to take a clear-cut decision based on the suggestions put forward in this letter to the editor.

First of all, to what extent is the Traffic in Waymarsh is becoming a problem must be established. If the traffic is noted only in the peak hours, then it is a common thing to be noted and hence can be ignored. On the other hand, if the traffic is severe throughout the day, then it must be given serious consideration. Hence the traffic problem must be clearly defined before the author moves on to further argument.

The traffic survey conducted three years ago is compared with the survey conducted recently. It is a faulty analogy because lots of changes might have taken place since the past three years. Therefore, to compare the current status with a status established three years ago is a fault and has to be substantiated with proper reasoning, as of why the survey is compared in this manner. Rather than comparison, if extrapolation is being done, then we can interpret the results in a clear manner.

The members of the town council are found to have suggested some road building measures to address the problem. Evidence needs to be given as to whether the suggestions were taken for discussion. Unless, this suggestion is thoroughly discussed, we cannot come to know the pros and cons of it and hence to determne the plan as expensive and going further to state that it will disrupt the existing residential neighbourhoods is a overkill. Even if this fact happens to be true, we need proof as to whether the government will be in a proper position to fund the road builiding and shift the residents to new area in order to create space for roads.

Above all, the author commits the fallacy of comparing two different places and attributing the benefits found in Garville to Waymarsh. In Garville, the people were told to share rides to the work - this might seem as a convincing argument for reduction in traffic. But the information that they were provided with coupons of free gas is a red herring; there is no reason for this information to be introduced in this situation and proper proof needs to be given for how the coupons contributed to reduction in traffic. Furthermore, to assume that reduced pollution levels having been obtained from the policy is not that satisfactory. There can be other reasons for the pollution to get reduced such as the planting of trees along the roads and concern among the people to save the environment etc...

Finally, the views of the people play an important role in determining the success or failure of a policy. Because, the policy of rewarding people to share rides to work went on well in Garville, it does not imply that the same results will be obtained in Waymarsh, Therefore, various factors need to be considered before implementing this policy and questionnaire can be given to people so as to elicit their responses and arrive at a proper conclusion.

All in all, the letter to the editor of the Waymarsh Times is flooded with lots of unverified assumptions lacking evidence like: validity of the survey conducted, traffic caused due to commuters who go to work, implementation of road building, the reward measure having effect on the commuters, success of the Waymarsh policy in Garville taken for granted. They must be thoroughly analyzed before arriving at a conclusion based on the suggestions put forward by the author.