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 asserts that the Balmer Island government should limit the number of moped rentals during the summer season to reduce the moped-involved accidents by 50 percent as observed in the city of Seaville. This conclusion is based on the premises that the rent of moped is a crucial factor for the moped accidents happen in the island, that the situation in Seaville can represent the Balmer Island’s case as well, and that the one year observation of Seaville’s case would be sufficient reason for changing policy on moped rentals. At first glance, the argument would seem persuasive, but closer scrutiny of the argument reveals that it lacks appropriate support or evidence and is therefore problematic as it stands.

First of all, true as it may be that the author premises that the large number of moped rentals is the primary reason of moped-involved accidents in the region, moped rentals might not be the crucial reason contributing to moped accidents. For instance, the inclement weather conditions during the summer season such as fogs or heavy rain in the Balmer Island could be the main reason of moped accidents. In addition, it might be the bad road conditions or topography of the island which contributes to the high number of accidents involving mopeds. If it is the case, the government of the island should focus more on the infrastructures such as roads rather than the sanction on the moped rentals.

Secondarily, the situation of Seaville might not be appropriate to be applied to the Balmer Island. Two villages might have too much different environmental factors to be regarded as analogous. For instance, there might be less population or less people who drive the mopeds in Seaville. Then, the number of moped drivers in total would be different in both islands. Suppose there were only 100 people who drove moped in Seaville and there were 1,000 people who drove moped in the Balmer Island. The reduction of 50 percent annual accident reduction would mean different numbers in both islands if it was the case. Thus, this erroneous analogy between the island and another village makes the argument suspicious.

Lastly, one year observation from the Seaville’s case would not be sufficient for changing policies on moped rentals. Even in the case the analogy between Seaville and the Balmer Island is reasonable because there is no significant environmental differences, one year’s observation is not sufficient enough to conclude on the effectiveness of the Seaville’s policy. The results of accident reduction might not hold if averaged over long term such as 5 years or 10 years. For instance, the change of accident rate would be negligible if averaged over long terms.

In sum, the argument fails to address any of these potential situations. If any of this is true, it would severely weaken the premises of the argument. Without ruling out these possibilities, thus, the speaker’s conclusion would be false.