The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper."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' lob

In this letter, the author points out that adding bicycle lane will decrease traffic. He/She also projects that adding the bicycle lane will encourage residents to use bicycles to commute. To bolster this recommendation, the author renders the fact that adding additional lane of traffic did not help for another highway last year. Close scrutiny of each of these facts reveals that none of them lends credible support to the assertion as it stands.

The author infers that adding bicycle lane or widening the highway are the only ways to reduce traffic. However, he/she ignores other means of achieving this end; for example using public transportation or buliding new railroads to name just a few. Without eliminating these alternative possibilities, the author cannot justify his/her assertion that the best way for decreasing traffic is adding bicycle lane.

The author’s projection relies on what might be a poor analogy between two courses of action. Perhaps, the same course of action would be effective in Blue highway due to differences between Blue and Green highwayes. If it transpires, for instance, that adding lane for Green highway created more emerging traffics but it will not occure for Blue highway, then the author’s conclusion is uncalled for. In short, what might happened for Green highway would not necessarily happen for Blue highway.

The letter seems to assume that adding bicycle lane will encourage people to use bicycles to commute, but it has failed to consider all conditions. If it turns out that the weather condition is not suitable for biking in most parts of the year or majority of commuters are old who cannot ride bicycles, then the author’s projection is unwarranted. To persuade me that adding bicycles lane will encourage residents to use bikes, the author must supply more information respecting residents and the weather condition.

In short, the letter relies on scant evidence and doubtful assumptions that renders it unconvincng and ill grounded as it stands. The argument would have been stronger had it provided more information representing causes of city and residents conditions.