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 ta

The aforementioned argument is well-presented and appears to be relatively cogent at first glance: since implementing a policy of sharing rides to work was effectively solve the traffic problem in Garville, it seems plausible to argue that similar policy would be beneficial for traffic in Waymarsh. However, as more light is shed on the issue and more detailed facts are concerned, the lack of evidence leads me to question the validity of the argument.

First of all, the author needs to provide more solid evidence whether the study three years ago and the recent study can be comparable. The author reveals compared to three years’ ago, people need more time to get to work, and asserts that traffic in Waymarsh becomes problematic. However, it is plausible that when the first study was conducted, the traffic was relatively not severe since it was not operating during the rush hours. In such a case, it is illogical to argue that the traffic has gotten severe over the last three years, and the inconvenient timing that might yield the longer commute times. Therefore, the author should provide inherent conditions of the two studies to corroborate the validity of the argument.

In addition, the author should implement the argument with more information on the effectiveness of a policy of sharing rides to work. The author rashly believes that the policy is beneficial since the pollution levels in Garville have dropped and commuting time has decreased. However, the author should take into account other factors that might engender the positive results. For instance, when the policy of sharing ride was initiated, the state government might also started severe economic punishments for factories that diffuse detrimental pollutants. In such a case, the pollution was not reduced due to the sharing cars to work, but due to the economic punishments on factories. Also, it is possible that commute times might have decreased because many people were moved out of Garville, so less traffic has been prevalent over the last year. If this would be the case, the author’s argument can be weakened.

Lastly, the author should verify the soundness of the argument that a policy like Garville’s should work equally well in Waymarsh. However, it should be noted that inherent condition of the two cities are different. For example, it might be possible that in Garville, many people are working at the nearby factories or companies, so that sharing a ride to work is possible. On the other hand, residents in Waymarsh are working at a wide array of locations, so that it is unlikely to share a ride to work. If such a case, although the policy of carpool might be feasible in Garville, it may not work well in Waymarsh. Therefore, more valid evidence on the innate conditions of these cities is necessary to attest the credibility of the conclusion.

The argument is not persuasive in many respects. To bolster the argument, the author should provide more concrete evidence mentioned above.