Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. Oppon

As suggested by the editorial in the newspaper, the Blue Highway should propose to construct a bicycle lane in order to reduce the rush-hour traffic. Also a comparision is drawn with the Green lane where additional lanes were but this lead to worsening of traffic jam. The comparision drawn and solutions proposed are full of false assumptions and lacks any accurate statistics which could have helped to justify the argument stated hereby.

Firstly, no statistics is provided for the number of commuters during the rush hours on the Blue or Green Highways. If the traffic increased by adding additional lanes on the Green Highway it does not necessarily justify that the traffic will increase by additional lane in Blue Highway. Additional traffic could be due to many other factors. It could be that there have been more addition of corporate buildings on that Green Highway route. Also it has not been stated that the Green Highway had traffic jams at time of rush hours. Hence there could be many different possibilities in such a case. Also the route for the Green Highway has not been specified in the editorial. This weakens the argument to a higher extent.

There have been no statistics provided for the number of people who like bicycling. Thus, the idea of having an additional bicycling lane may not prove to be beneficial. While going to office people might prefer to commute by car or a public transport. If clear evidences or statistics were provided to support the claim that having a bicycle lane on Blue Highway that could have strenthened the argument. Rather having bicycle lane could lead to further increase in traffic as well.

Hence the editorial is full of fallacies and no clear evidneces and statistics are provided to support the claim.