So long as they are aware of the dangers involved, adults should not be legally bound to use seat belts.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Public safety measures have been enforced by multiple governments around the world, to ensure general safety of the public. Whether such a measure must be legally mandatory or the individual's responsibility has been a fairly contested topic in the past. Engineers and lawmakers have worked hard on developing traffic safety rules/equipment to ensure that the roads are safe, and in my opinion, I mostly agree with the stated claim, since the seat belt is one of these kinds of equipment. To detail my full opinion, there are two main points to consider.
When seat belts were introduced in the 1960s, as a way to prevent severe injury due to accidents (that the driver may not even be responsible for). They were not intended as the 'end-all be-all' of car safety, and were added to cars so as to protect its passengers against other, say, law-breaking drivers that may cause an accident by colliding with them. There were a lot of protests by groups who, much like the 'anti-vax' (anti-vaccination) group of today, claimed that this was a mode of government control, and that the State was overreaching into the lives of its people. Many conspiracies spread around, and only after multiple fatal accidents did most of these voices die down. Public consensus became more and more in favour of the seatbelt, since the people learnt of the consequences of not wearing a seatbelt when driving. But did it have to be this way? The lesson learnt was immeasurably valuable in terms of car safety, but was it worth the lives lost? If seat belts were legally enforced earlier, then a lot of these cases could have been avoided.
Awareness of danger is not enough, especially when the danger is preventable. Consider the case of CB Mall, a South Korean shopping mall that was very well-known for its range of shops and amenities. The mall was built in a manner that reduced the cost of construction, ignoring multiple safety measures and checks that the government had put in place. Money was passed around among powerful people to allow the mall to be operational, even though its defeciencies were well-known. Heavy air-ventilation pumps were kept on the top of the building, and cracks gradually developed under where it was placed over the span of a few weeks. At one point, the mall even taped off the section of the mall that had the cracks claiming that it was 'under repair,' while also not closing the entire mall, allowing normal life to carry on. When the cracks expanded and broke, the building crumbled down, and many lives were lost. The builders, and moreso the owner, knew of the mall's foundational problems, but they failed to act on it, due to the levels of profit they had from its shops. If the government had strictly enforced the existing laws for building structures, this could have been avoided, and the mall could have been built in a way that was beneficial to everybody. Hence, awareness is not sufficient. Legal enforcement is necessary to ensure that laws meant for public safety are dutifully adhered to.
In conclusion, adults should be legally bound to wear seat belts when driving, irrespective of the level to which they acknowledge and know the dangers involved of not wearing one, simply out of public interest. One may argue that when enforcement of seat belts is done, people may be arrested for not wearing them, or they may be subject to the sometimes unlawful behaviour of police, especially when there is a 'power struggle' at hand. Some of the police forces in countries like the United States have been found to go over boundaries to 'enforce' the law, when they are obligated to simply help maintain it. The fears of having to face unlawful actions by police is a valid one, but it still does not discount the social trust that one must keep intact by wearing a seat belt. In fact, in some ways, this is also an argument in favour of wearing a seat belt. Fears against injustice are valid, but when these fears exist along with blatant social irresponsibility, it would be morally wrong to argue against the seat belt. People who believe otherwise do so at their own peril.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-07 | Technoblade | 62 | view |
| 2020-05-01 | elisabetta_fedele | 50 | view |
| 2019-06-10 | arkwl | 63 | view |
- Claim The emergence of the online blogosphere and social media has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States Reason When anyone can publish political opinions easily standards for covering news and political topics wil 66
- We learn our most valuable lessons in life from struggling with our limitations rather than from enjoying our successes Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your positi 70
- Collectors prize the ancient life size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island but have long wondered how Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision Since archaeologists have recently discovered molds of human head 71
- Children should not be forced by law to be educated by either public schools or home schooling if their parents do not wish them to be Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take In d 66
- The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors Techcorporation is our top pick for investment this term We urge all of our clients to invest in this new company For the first time in ten years a company that has developed satellite te 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 181, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'individuals'' or 'individual's'?
Suggestion: individuals'; individual's
...easure must be legally mandatory or the individuals responsibility has been a fairly contes...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 230, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...l of car safety, and were added to cars so as to protect its passengers against other, s...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 438, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...when there is a power struggle at hand. Some of the police forces in countries like the Uni...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, may, so, still, then, well, while, as to, in conclusion, in fact, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 47.0 19.5258426966 241% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 27.0 11.3162921348 239% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 106.0 58.6224719101 181% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3397.0 2235.4752809 152% => OK
No of words: 711.0 442.535393258 161% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77777777778 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.16377606524 4.55969084622 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59838503306 2.79657885939 93% => OK
Unique words: 351.0 215.323595506 163% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493670886076 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 1054.8 704.065955056 150% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 3.10617977528 322% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 14.0 1.77640449438 788% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 20.2370786517 148% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.2670687561 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.233333333 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.36666666667 5.21951772744 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.140790160573 0.243740707755 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0393335691849 0.0831039109588 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0463690734367 0.0758088955206 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0869580456553 0.150359130593 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0429236820119 0.0667264976115 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.8420337079 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.74 12.1639044944 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 100.480337079 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.