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 patr

The recommendation suggests that Prunty should implement the same installations such as increasing lane widths, resurfacing rough highways and improving visibility at dangerous intersections as Bulter, the accident rate of which has decreased since it executed these improvements. While, at the first glance the argument seems to be plausible,with a close scrutiny,the argument suffers a few of flaws that render itself to be unpersuasive as it stands

Firstly,the author assumes that lowing speed limit does not contribute on lowing accident rate. It is entirely possible that there are several other reasons except those improvements which Butler conduted,would be blamed for unchanged situation in the number of accidents on highways after lowing speed limit.Considering,a significant rise in the number of accidents happened on countrysides where speed limit is not covered might offset a considerable drop in accidents rate on highways,therefore,the overall accident rate in Prunty remains stable. Furthermore,many drives exceeding the new-enacted speed limit could be seen as an indicator of that the influence of lower speed limit is not widely accepted. Maybe,after a long period of time,when drives are accustomed with the new limit,then the accident rate would drop.

Secondly,the argument relies on the assumption that Prunty and Bulter are comparable.It is highly likely that these two counties have different traffic flows and sizes. Regarding to Butler,it is might be located among metropolitan cities as a necessary past for commuters,therefore it would have a higher accident rate comparing a tranquil county Prunty where people prefer walking within the neighborhoods or taking public transportation. Without ruling out these alternative explanations,I would not be convinced by the argument.

Thirdly,the assertion speculates that five years is not a long period of time,in fact the effectiveness of implementing such improvements would be affected by other factors during five years. It is possible that residents in Prunty had been moving out of the county for better public facilities and more convenient lives,especially teenagers,who would seek educational opportunities outside of Butler once they grow up.

Furthermore,teenagers are notorious for their reckless driving behavior,therefore,with teenagers moving into colleges,the accident rate of Butler might naturally decrease even without the installations of such improvements. In addition,the reported figures of the number of accidents in Butler might be falsified for the overall face appearance of Butler county especially if these two counties are located within a close distance,then lower accident rate in Butler would attract more new-comers,settlers and investors,therefore it is favorable to enhance Butler ‘s local economy in a long term by neglecting unreported figures. From common sense,it is also very likely to be the case when financial interests are involved.

To sum up,the argument is suffering several reasoning flaws. To support the conclusion better,the author should cite more evidence to prove the correlation between two counties. To better justify the argument,the author need to clarify how road improvements would contribute to lower accident rate in a controllable manner. Otherwise,the argument is untenable and unpersuasive.