Arugument type - 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 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' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. But last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. A better alternative is to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, and so would reduce rush-hour traffic rather than fostering an increase."

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.

COMPOSITION:
According to the letter, to solve the commute traffic, the writer insists to build a bicycle lane instead of an additional traffic lane. But the writer has some errors because the letter doesn’t provide enough data. Therefore to obtain an agreement with trader, the writer had better make up for adequate evidence. The reason is the following.

First of all, if the writer wants to use Green Highway case, he has to provide additional data, which make the writer’s argument clear. For example, a region near Green Highway might have increased population due to moving in past winter. Not the additional traffic lane but increased population might cause the commute to be heavy. Or a way used commute with Green Highway might be under construction in past winter. Therefore, despite of new additional traffic lane, prohibited another way might cause the commute to be heavy.

Secondly, the new bicycle lane might cause accidents. If bicycle lane is built aside load, between bicycle and pedestrian might have an impact without systematically traffic control. If new bicycle lane were built aside Highway to adapt a system of highway, it would occur more dangerous accident.

Finally, the result of survey might not mean that new bicycle lane could solve the traffic problem. For example, thought the respondent would like to bicycle, it could be for exercise. Without the content of questionnaire the writer could not use the response for data.

In sum, the writer should provide more evidence because the letter has some logical weak points. Otherwise, the writer can persuade nobody.

PS: IF THE GRADING HERE IS LESS THAN 4.0 THEN PLEASE SUGGEST A ALTERNATE.

THANK YOU