The following appeared in a letter to the editor of 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' lob

Although the support for the addition of a bicycle lane is noble, the writer fails to convincingly prove his claims and recommendation thus weakening his argument. The writer fails to support his argument with cogent proofs and details. Before proposing the addition of bicycle lane, the writer should identify the causes of increased rush hour traffic, show that residents would cycle for non-recreational purposes and prove that a bicycle lane would incentivize residents to ride bicycles and how this would impact traffic.

The writer has to prove that the current lanes on the highway is the significant cause of increased rush hour traffic. This is because other factors such as impatience, accidents, and disobedience of traffic rules may contribute to traffic jams during rush hours. However, if the writer can show that holding other factors constant, the limited number of lanes is responsible for traffic jams, his argument would be bolstered. Also, the writer mentions the failure of the additional lane on Green highway to reduce traffic. This claim doesnot bolster the writer’s argument because he fails to identify the causes of the increased traffic jam and fails to show how claim supports his recommendation for a bicycle lane. The assertion that an additional lane failed on Green highway does not mean it would fail on Blue highway.

Also, the writer contends that the addition of a bicycle lane is better because residents are keen bicyclists. This point however does not strengthen his recommendation. The fact that residents are bicyclists doesnot mean they would ride their bicycles to work or use it to drop off and pick up their kids during rush hour. They may be keen bicyclists for recreational purposes. Also, riding a bicycle may also not save time because a car moves faster than a bicycle. The writer can strengthen his arguments by showing that residents who commute using bicycles have reduced commute time.

Third, the writer argues that the addition of a bicycle lane would encourage residents to use the bicycle lane and reduce rush hour traffic. This claim is spurious as the writer fails to provide a correlation on how traffic would be reduced. For instance, if all residents decide to use the bicycle lane and just one bicycle lane is provided, there would still be traffic. In addition, other road users may begin to use the road thus leading to continued traffic.

To validate his arguments and recommendation, the writer needs to identify the root causes of increased rush hour traffic in the area before supporting the addition of a bicycle lane or arguing against the widening of the highway.