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 tak

In this argument, the author concludes that implementing the same policy of Garville will reduce the commute hours and pollution in Waymarsh. Nevertheless, the author fails to provide sufficient evidence to permit a proper evaluation of the argument’s reasoning. Each point of deficiency is illustrated respectively below.

One of the argument’s deficiencies is the author provides no specific evidence to reveal the current traffic situation in Waymarsh. The information about the recent traffic of Waymarsh is needed in order to determine whether the policy is applicable to Waymarsh. In order to strenghten his argument , the author cites a state traffic survey to demonstrate that the commute times in Waymarsh almost double though, the outcome is suspicious. Is the standpoint of this survey unbiased? If the survey is performed by an institution affiliated to the town council, the conclusion it made, definitely, is out of trustworthy. Even if the outcome is objective, the commute times do increase a lot during the past three years, without further evidence to clarify the reasons why the traffic deteriorated, this policy may still unfeasible in Waymarsh. Maybe it is not the traffic congestion prolong the commute hour, the local people may walk to work in order to protect the enviroment. If the case is like what I assumed, there is no necessary to enforce the policy.

Another weakeness of the argument is it provides no evidence to prove the causal relationship between the policy and the decrease of commute times and pollution in Garville. Firstly, there is no sufficient evidence to show that it is the sharing rides to work policy make the environment in Garville better. Perhaps the government has implemented another strict policy to limit the emission of vehicle exhaust which is the main pollutant in Garville. Without excluding other factors can clear the environment, it is hardly to guarantee this policy is really effective. Secondly, the author cites the speaking of the residents in Garville to show that the commute times dropped there. However, the speaking is unreliable in my eyes. Maybe the author just meet several Garville people, what they said is subjective and could not represent the real situation in Garville. Let alone those people may be boastful.

Besides, no precise evidence is delivered to demonstrate the situation in Waymarsh is same or similar to Garville. Without this information, it is difficult to conclude that enforcing the same policy in Waymarsh will work as well as Garville. Perhaps, the Waymarsh is much bigger than Garville, it is unpractical to implement the sharing rides policy because the relationship between Waymarsh people is distant and people are reluctant to share vehicles. Or maybe the reason why commute times increased is distinctively different between Waymarsh and Garville. If traffic congestion is the main reason to Garville, sharing rides can be an effective way to relieve the traffic burden. However, if the main reason of the augment in commute times in Waymarsh is people altered their habit of commute like what I said before, the policy may be unnecessary.

In sum, if the author could not provide furthor substantial evidence as what I concerned above, the conclusion presented in the argument sounds unconvincing.