In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County last year lowered its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour on all county highways. But this effort has failed: the number of accidents has not decreased, and, based on reports by the highway patro

The writer of the argument recommends the Prunty Country to apply the same kind of road improvement project that Butler Country completed five years ago in order to improve highway safety. The author also cites limited anecdotal evidence to support the recommendation. Close scrutiny of the evidences, however, reveals that they lend little creditable support to the author’s recommendation.

Firstly, the author relies on a threshold assumption that exceeding the speed limits was solely responsible for the increase in the number of accidents in country highways. However, it is entirely possible that one or more other factors were instead responsible for this observation. Absent any evidence that this is the case, I cannot accept the author’s recommendation. Perhaps the old dilapidated cars caused the accidents. Or perhaps the accidents happened due to failure in traffic control instruments in the highways. Without accounting for these and other plausible explanations, the author cannot defend the recommended course of action.

Secondly, nor the mere fact that road improvement project was successful in Butler Country lends significant credence to the author’s recommendation. Perhaps people were more careful in Butler Country. Or perhaps people awareness was increased in the last 5 years at Butler Country due to successful advertisement campaigns on television. Hence, people were more aware of the potential dangers as well as essential safety measure of highway. In short, nor the author justify the recommended course of action based on Butler Country’s success. Without establishing that all relevant circumstances involving the highway safety were essentially the same, I cannot accept the recommended course of action.

Finally, another problem with the argument is that the editorial’s author unfairly assumes that all conditions remained unchanged with time, especially since a considerable period of time has passed since Prunty Country lowered the speed limits for highways. Unless the author supplies evidence to substantiate this critical assumption, I remain unconvinced. Perhaps the cars’ safety, due to some improvements in the factories’ design and fabrication, increased in the last five years. Alternatively, maybe police hired highly trained officer to control the traffic in highways. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the author’s assertion that road improvement project were merely responsible the 25 percent decrease in highway accidents and casualties.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed, and therefore unpersuasive. To bolster the argument, the author must supply evidence to substantiate that: (1) no other factors, instead of exceeding the speed limits, were responsible for the increase in the number of accidents in Prunty Country highways; (2) all relevant circumstances involving the highway safety were essentially the same at both countries; (3) all conditions in both places were remained unchanged with time.