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 patrol, many drivers are exceeding the speed limit. Prunty County should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths, resurfacing rough highways, and improving visibility at dangerous intersections. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than there were five years ago.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
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.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2020-01-18 | sapana | 33 | view |
2019-12-14 | yswang | 34 | view |
2019-11-28 | angeshpokharel | 55 | view |
2019-11-19 | bishal sitaula | 53 | view |
2019-11-17 | smithsonite79 | 63 | view |
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy At the same time manufacturers are now marketing many home applianc 80
- To be an effective leader a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to address 77
- Claim In any field business politics education government those in power should step down after five years Reason The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership Write a response in which you discuss the extent to wh 50
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. 60
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 85
Sentence: 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.
Description: A verb 'to have', present tense, 3rd person singular is not usually followed by a verb, base: uninflected present, imperative or infinitive
Suggestion: Refer to has and reap
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not exactly. you said: 'However, the author should consider that Prunty might have already undertaken similar road improvement project few years ago.', but from the passage, need to consider that Prunty didn't take similar road improvement project few years ago.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 429 350
No. of Characters: 2217 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.551 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.168 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.704 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 182 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.45 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.801 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.36 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.565 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5