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 author of the statement concludes that encouraging people to share their rides, would reduce the heavy traffic in the Waymarsh city. This conclusion is based on the experience that the nearby city of Garville have, and as it is seems it resulted in the decreased pollution and people are telling that the commuting time to their workplace is decreased after implementing this strategy. There are several important evidence needed to lead us to affirm the authors’ conclusion.

First, a crucial evidence is needed to show that the heavy traffic exists. The mere evidence showing that the average commute to work takes 10 more minutes, does not necessarily stand for a heavy traffic. Since a three-year period is past, there might be changes that have prolonged the commute time other than traffic. It is possible that speed limit is decreased, and cars should drive slower to their destinations. It is also possible that the people are having a hard-time finding a parking location that the average time to commute to work is increased. with that being the case, by making a parking lot the problems would be solved, not otherwise. Unless the traffic is not portrayed in details any solution would be defied by the unclear argument.

Secondly, the Graville town is mentioned as a successful example seemingly showing the efficiency of the policy to encourage people to share rides to work. An evidence is needed here to show that exclusively it was due to sharing rides that pollution is decreased and people get to their destinations faster. It is possible that Graville authorities took parallel policies and the author failed to consider them. For instance, Graville governors might implement strict laws punishing drivers who produce too much pollution. Also Graville might even use new roads to facilitate moving from one place to the other, besides sharing rides.

Finally, even if in the Graville town, the traffic has become lighter only due to sharing rides, it is possible that such a strategy will not work in the Waymarsh. The cars which people are driving to work might already be occupied with passengers, allowing no further significant share in ride. Furthermore, the author assumes that free gas coupons would not exact a high price on the town. As there is no evidence of how much the cost of providing free gas would be, it is possible that its net costs surpasses the costs of making new roads. Furthermore, the commence time and the destination of the workplaces might be very different, that even with coupons and other encouragement the strategy does not pay. The author needs evidence that everything fits with the strategy to be carried out and be beneficial significantly. The strategy also should be durable and with the increase in the population still work in the future. Otherwise the money to invest to encourage people might not be justifiable.

In short, the argument lacks several vital evidence to support the authors’ conclusion. The argument in the current form is replete with the ambiguous conditions defying any certain evaluation. Therefore, the conclusion based on such an argument cannot be tenable.