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 argument above is well-presented and appears to be relatively sound at first glance: since the number of accidents has not decreased despite of reducing speed limit, It seems plausible to adhering to the means that Butler County implemented. However, as more light is shed on the issue and more detailed facts are concerned, the lack of evidence leads me to question the validity of the argument.

First of all, the author needs to provide more concrete evidence on the effectiveness of decreasing speed limits. Since the number of accidents in highways, the author hastily concludes that lowering the speed limits is not effective to improve highway safety. However, the author should take into account the possibility that other factors might have influenced the constant rate of accidents. For instance, it is plausible that a new mall has opened in Prunty County, so that the number of cars in the highways has significantly increased. In such a case, the increased number of car accidents would be natural, and it could yield the constant rate of car accidents. Therefore, more information on the effectiveness of the limiting speed is necessary to support the author’s argument.

In addition, the author should supplement the argument with more concrete information whether the present condition of Butler County and the condition of Butler five years ago are comparable. Because there were fewer reported accidents compared to five years ago, the author rashly believes that road improvement projects has reap a myriad of benefits to Butler. However, in all likelihood, the overall population of Butler might have decreased tremendously during the five years, so less people are using highways. If this would be the case, it is possible that the fewer accidents were reported not because of the policy but because of the other factor. Therefore, the author should provide more detailed information on the conditions of Butler five years ago and present.

Lastly, the author should provide more valid evidence on the soundness of the conclusion that the Prunty County should follow the footsteps of the Butler. Without detailed information on the different conditions of two cities, the author assumes that the policy will be beneficial for Prunty. However, the author should consider that Prunty might have already undertaken similar road improvement project few years ago. In such a case, the policy might not be helpful to improve highway safety. Therefore, the author needs corroborate the credibility of the conclusion.

In conclusion, the aforementioned argument is not cogent in many respects. To bolster the argument, the author should provide all the evidence mentioned above.