The following appeared in an editorial in 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' lobby is to w

The argument claims that there is an increase in complains about the traffic jam on Blue Highway. There are two proposal offered by two groups, the first one is adding an additional lane of traffic and the other one is adding a bicycle lane; also the argument provides supports of each side for their advice. Stated in this way, the proposals in the argument manipulate the facts and convey a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on facts for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is unconvincing and open to debate.

First, the argument readily assumes that commuters complain about the increased rush-hour traffic. However, the argument does not indicate how many complains are received and whether there are alternative roads which the commuters might use. In addition, the cause of the increase in rush hour traffic is not specified. It might be the case that there is an increase in the number of cars or deterioration in public transportation system. In either of these cases, motivating people to use public transportation instead of private cars might be more profitable than constructing an additional lane. Without convincing answers to the questions stated above, the necessity about the new lane would remain unsubstantiated instead of relying on clear evidence.

Second, the motorists' lobby asserts that an additional traffic lane was added in Green Highway and proved to be successful in there in decreasing traffic jam. The argument is weak and unsupported as the argument does not demonstrate any clear connection between Blue Highway and the Green Highway. To illustrate, the number of people who use these highways might be different. For instance, there might be fewer people who use Green Highway; hence,the proposition worked in there. Moreover, there might be other factors such as opening of new roads that lead to decrease in the load of traffic in Green Highway. In addition, there might be fewer lanes in Green Highway before the addition than Blue Highway and because of this reason adding a new lane might be necessary. Consequently, the argument would be much stronger if it clearly explained the similarities between Green Highway and Blue Highway.

Finally, the opponents of new traffic lane claim that a bicycle lane should be added. In this way, people would be motivated to use bicycles when traveling to their work, hence; rush-hour traffic would be reduced. The argument is stretched and undeveloped. For example, the opponents averts that many area residents are keen bicyclists, but they do not provide any support for this assertion. The stastics regarding the number of people using bicycles in their daily lives for transportation in the area would be beneficial in evaluating the argument. In addition, even if people prefer using their bicycles for short distances, they might not consider them as an alternative to commute in Blue Highway; since the distance might be so long for using bicycles. Moreover, people might wear suits and formal clothes for job and using bicycles in these clothes might not be convenient. As a result, the argument would substantially stronger if it indicated the length of the Blue Highway and people’s preference about using bicycles to commute on there.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore, it is unconvincing. The argument would be stronger if it distinctly illustrated the reasons that might cause the jam in rush hours. In order to evaluate the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.