The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Balmer Island Gazette."On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involv

The argument presented is an interesting one, however, its have some fallacies in its reasoning that lead to an erroneous conclusion. The writer fails to mention several key factors in which this situation would have been evaluated by. He claims that for accidents to be reduced in a Balmer Island, the number of mopeds rented per day should be reduced. Also basing this reference to a neighbouring Island that used the same technique to solve a similar conundrum. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak/unconvincing and has several flaws.

First and foremost, the writer claims of reducing the number of mopeds rented on the streets of Balmer in a quest to reduce the number of Mopeds on the streets is obviously not going to achieve the desired aim. The population of mopeds that increased could be attributed to the fact that members of the society are acquiring more mopeds for self use and not necessarily because more people are purchasing them strictly for rental. Hence it would be wrong to assume that the increase of Mopeds in the streets is strictly due to increase in mopeds rented out by companies as even an increase in mopeds on the streets could be attributed to the individuals desire to own their personal Mopeds and hence put an end to renting. Until the writer is able to provide accurate and legitimate data carried out to attain the number of mopeds that are actually owned by rental companies this suggestion remains invalid and debatable.Until he is able to provide answers to the questions mentioned above, will his argument be persuasive.

Secondly, even if we are to assume that the population of Mopeds increased due to increase in the number of this transport mechanisms bought by the rental companies. There is no fact or prove to back up his claim that a reduction in number of rentals per company by 25 percent would lead to tantamount reduction in accidents. To back his claim, he based his reasoning on Seaville's town council. Which he claims used the same technique and accident rates lowered. On first glance one would think his suggestion is valid. However with further inspection and analysis, its deleterious to his quest to make his argument more compelling to have this assumption. Reason been, he fails to assert that Seaville's town's accidents rate could be caused by the Moped rental company and that could be why accidents rate dropped after the aforementioned law was imposed there. Furthermore, as far as he fails to state clearly the exact course of accidents in his town, this argument remains not valid.

Thirdly, the writer's failure to provide facts and data to backup his claims has lead affected the aim of this argument. To make it more compelling, he should clearly state the number of Mopeds owner by private and rental companies. Further more carry a more detailed research on the reasons accidents occurred in his town rather than base his reasons on a near by town. Its only by doing this would his argument be convincing and be regarded as a posit.