A letter to the editor of a newspaper highlighted the commuters plight as a result of an increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and city-center. As a result, the travelling time for their journey has doubled. The letter undermines a solution provided by the motorists' lobby and supports the inclusion of a bicycle track in Blue Highway. The arguer predicts that adding a bicycle track would reduce rush-hour traffic. The evidences as well as the suggestion of a bicycle track looks legible during the first read. But a closer look unearths possible discrepancies which could undermine the arguer's suggestion.
Firstly, the arguer draws a comparison between Blue Highway and Green Highway and states that the solution adopted by Green Highway would fail at Blue Highway. It is not entirely true that such a situation would occur. What if the road work that was done on Green highway was a misnomer? Therefore, it could explain the reason why the traffic jams did not lessen in intensity. On the contrary, what if the road work on Green Highway was adeptly done, but it goes through a number of housing societies? This could explain why the traffic jams have not decreased. But such situations do not necessarily undermine the motorists' suggestion that an additional lane on Blue Highway would not help abate the traffic jams.
Secondly, the arguer is of the opinion that adding a cycle lane to Blue Highway would be a much better alternative to widening the highway. The arguer opines that cycling is popular among the residents close to the highway. therefore, a bicycle lane will be an added impetus to cycle to work and consequently, the traffic on the highway would decrease. How can the argue be sure that the residents will cycle to work? what if their workplace is fifty miles away? No sane person would even think about cycling fifty miles to work since it would affect his work performance. Moreover, the increase in cyclists also increases the probability of a cyclist getting hit by a car. Building a cycle track just next to a highway is a dangerous adventure and it would be hard to predict the number of residents who would commit to cycling as a mode of transport to work.
Lastly, the effect of widening Green Highway was studied an year ago. An year old data cannot accurately portray the present scenario. What if there has been a decrease in the number of motorists? It could mean that the traffic jams might have eroded in intensity and hence, it bolsters the motorists' claim that widening the highway is a viable solution. In order to strengthen his position, the arguer should present current data and claim that the traffic jam on Green Highway still persists.
In sum, the evidences provided by the arguer in support of a bicycle track are dubious and fallacious. A reader would find it tough to categorically ascertain if the addition of a bicycle track on Blue Highway would be a successful decision. Hence, the arguer should provide more compelling and relevant evidences to bolster his claim.
A letter to the editor of a newspaper highlighted the commuters plight
as a result
of an increased rush-hour
traffic
on
Blue
Highway
between the suburbs and city-center.
As a result
, the travelling time for their journey has doubled. The letter undermines a solution provided by the motorists' lobby and supports the inclusion of a
bicycle
track
in
Blue
Highway
. The arguer predicts that adding a
bicycle
track
would
reduce
rush-hour
traffic
.
The
evidences
as well
as the suggestion of a
bicycle
track
looks legible during the
first
read.
But
a closer look unearths possible discrepancies which could undermine the arguer's suggestion.
Firstly
, the arguer draws a comparison between
Blue
Highway
and
Green
Highway
and states that the solution adopted by
Green
Highway
would fail at
Blue
Highway
. It is not
entirely
true that such a situation would occur. What if the road
work
that
was done
on
Green
highway
was a misnomer?
Therefore
, it could
explain
the reason why the
traffic
jams did not lessen in intensity.
On the contrary
, what if the road
work
on
Green
Highway
was
adeptly
done,
but
it goes through a number of housing societies? This could
explain
why the
traffic
jams have not decreased.
But
such situations do not
necessarily
undermine the motorists' suggestion that an additional lane on
Blue
Highway
would not
help
abate the
traffic
jams.
Secondly
, the arguer is of the opinion that adding a
cycle
lane to
Blue
Highway
would be a much better alternative to widening the
highway
. The arguer opines that cycling is popular among the residents close to the
highway
.
therefore
, a
bicycle
lane will be an
added
impetus to
cycle
to
work
and
consequently
, the
traffic
on the
highway
would decrease. How can
the argue
be sure that the residents will
cycle
to
work
?
what
if their workplace is fifty miles away? No sane person would even
think
about cycling fifty miles to
work
since it would affect his
work
performance.
Moreover
, the increase in cyclists
also
increases the probability of a cyclist getting hit by a car. Building a
cycle
track
just
next
to a
highway
is a
dangerous
adventure and it would be
hard
to predict the number of residents who would commit to cycling as a mode of transport to work.
Lastly
, the effect of widening
Green
Highway
was studied
an
year ago.
An
year
old
data cannot
accurately
portray the present scenario. What if there has been a decrease in the number of motorists? It could mean that the
traffic
jams might have eroded in intensity and
hence
, it bolsters the motorists' claim that widening the
highway
is a viable solution. In order to strengthen his position, the arguer should present
current
data and claim that the
traffic
jam on
Green
Highway
still
persists.
In sum, the evidences provided by the arguer in support of a
bicycle
track
are dubious and fallacious. A reader would find it tough to
categorically
ascertain if the addition of a
bicycle
track
on
Blue
Highway
would be a successful decision.
Hence
, the arguer should provide more compelling and relevant evidences to bolster his claim.