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 takes closer to 40 minutes, according to the survey just completed. Members of the town council already have suggested more road building to address the problem, but as well as being expensive, the new construction will surely disrupt some of our residential neighborhoods. It would be better to follow the example of the nearby city of Garville. Last year Garville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work, giving them coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Garville have dropped since the policy was implemented, and people from Garville tell me that commuting times have fallen considerably. There is no reason why a policy like Garville's shouldn't work equally well in Waymarsh."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author of the statement concludes that encouraging people to share their rides, would reduce the heavy traffic in the Waymarsh city. This conclusion is based on the experience that the nearby city of Garville have, and as it seems, it resulted in the decreased pollution and people are telling that the commuting time to their workplace is decreased after implementing this strategy. There are several important evidence needed to lead us to affirm the authors’ conclusion.
First, the crucial evidence is needed to show that the heavy traffic exists. The mere evidence that the commute to work is doubled does not necessarily show the traffic. It is possible that the speed limit decreased that cars should drive slower to their destinations. It is also possible that people go to their destinations by walking. Unless the traffic is not portrayed in details any solution would be defied by the unclear argument.
Secondly, the Graville town is mentioned as a successful example, seemingly showing the efficiency of the policy to encourage people to share rides to work. An evidence is needed here to show that it was exclusively due to sharing rides that pollution is decreased and people get to their destinations faster. It is possible that Graville authorities took parallel policies and the author failed to consider them. For instance, Graville governors might implement strict laws punishing drivers who produce too much pollution. Also Graville might even use new roads to facilitate moving from one place to the other, besides sharing rides.
Finally, even if in the Graville town, the traffic has become lighter only due to sharing rides, it is possible that such a strategy will not work in the Waymarsh. The cars which people are driving to work might already be occupied with passengers, allowing no further significant share in the rides. Furthermore, the author assumes that free gas coupons would not exact a high price on the town. As there is no evidence of how much the cost of providing free gas would be, it is possible that its net costs surpasses the costs of making new roads. Furthermore, the commencement of work-time and the destination of the workplaces might be very different, that even with coupons and other encouragement the strategy does not pay. The author needs evidence that everything fits with the strategy to be carried out and be beneficial, significantly. The strategy also should be durable and with the increase in the population still work in the future. Otherwise the money to invest to encourage people might not be justifiable.
In short, the argument lacks several vital evidence to support the authors’ conclusion. The argument in the current form is replete with the ambiguous conditions defying any certain evaluation. Therefore, the conclusion based on such an argument cannot be tenable.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2019-12-24 | ken10091995 | 63 | view |
2019-11-16 | smithsonite79 | 69 | view |
2019-10-31 | FaylEAVE0920 | 69 | view |
2019-10-25 | nikkk | 42 | view |
2019-10-19 | nikkk | 69 | view |
- Evidence suggests that academic honor codes, which call for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated, are far more successful than are other methods at deterring che 70
- 2.Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system.Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagreewith the claim and the rea 45
- The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client."Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experienc 70
- The following appeared as a recommendation by a committee planning a ten-year budget for the city of Calatrava."The birthrate in our city is declining: in fact, last year's birthrate was only one-half that of five years ago. Thus the number of students en 50
- The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria."Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for 80
argument 1 -- not OK. Here goes the argument:
'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 takes closer to 40 minutes, according to the survey just completed'
suggested:
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.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 466 350
No. of Characters: 2332 1500
No. of Different Words: 216 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.646 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.004 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.661 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 137 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.417 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.1 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.458 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.287 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.495 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.099 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5