The writer of the letter recommends the Blamer Island Gazette to limit the number of moped rentals in order to reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians. To support this recommendation the author cites anecdotal evidence regarding Seaville’s town that applied similar limits on moped rentals. Close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little credible support for the author’s recommendation.
The author’s recommendation is based on a false analogy between the two councils that enforced similar limits on moped rentals in order to reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and the island’s pedestrians. In order to act as a model for Blamer Island Gazette to emulate, the author must assume that all circumstances involving the two islands’ council were the same. However, the author fails to offer any convincing evidence that this is the case. For that matter, the author cannot defend that the recommended course of action would bring the same result in Blamer Island Gazette. Hence, I cannot accept the recommendation.
The recommendation relies on another crucial assumption that the increase in the number of mopeds was responsible for the increase in the number of accidents by itself. Nevertheless, the author overlooks the possibility that other plausible factor involving the accidents and the increase in the population caused the increase in the number of accidents. Perhaps the pedestrians, in the summer where the island was very crowded, were less careful while they were walking. Or perhaps the moped drivers were careless during the summer, in which event more accidents were happened. I would also need to know whether they flouted the transportation’s laws or not. In short, unless the author accounts for these and other possible scenarios, the author’s recommendation amount to especially poor advice for the Blamer Island Gazette.
Another threshold assumption upon which the author’s recommendation is based is that he or she expects the same 50 percent reduction in the number of accidents if similar limits are imposed to the mopeds rental companies. Yet, there is no evidence in the argument to substantiate this crucial assumption. Maybe the number of accidents would decrease by 30 percent, or maybe more. In short, until the author substantiate this assumption, I remain unconvinced that the recommended course of action would bring the same results in Blamer Island Gazette to the desired extent.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing in its current form. To bolster the argument, a number of questions are to be answered. First, whether all the factors regarding the pedestrians accident were essentially the same. Second, whether the number of accidents are proportional to the number of mopeds. Finally, whether the utilization of equal limits would bring the exact same 50 percent decrease in the number of pedestrians accidents in Blamer Island Gazette.
The writer of the letter recommends the Blamer
Island
Gazette
to
limit
the
number
of
moped
rentals
in order to
reduce
the
number
of
accidents
involving
mopeds and
pedestrians
. To support this
recommendation
the
author
cites anecdotal
evidence
regarding
Seaville
’s town that applied similar
limits
on
moped
rentals
.
Close scrutiny
of this
evidence
reveals that it lends
little
credible support for the
author’s
recommendation.
The
author’s
recommendation
is based
on a false analogy between the two councils that enforced similar
limits
on
moped
rentals
in order to
reduce
the
number
of
accidents
involving
mopeds and the
island’s
pedestrians
. In order to act as a model for Blamer
Island
Gazette
to emulate, the
author
must
assume that all circumstances
involving
the two
islands’
council were the same.
However
, the
author
fails to offer any convincing
evidence
that this is the case. For that matter, the
author
cannot defend that the recommended course of action would bring the same result in Blamer
Island
Gazette
.
Hence
, I cannot accept the recommendation.
The
recommendation
relies on another crucial
assumption
that the
increase
in the
number
of mopeds was responsible for the
increase
in the
number
of
accidents
by itself.
Nevertheless
, the
author
overlooks the possibility that other plausible factor
involving
the
accidents
and the
increase
in the population caused the
increase
in the
number
of
accidents
. Perhaps the
pedestrians
, in the summer where the
island
was
very
crowded, were less careful while they were walking. Or perhaps the
moped
drivers were careless during the summer, in which
event
more
accidents
were happened
. I would
also
need to know whether they flouted the transportation’s laws or not. In short, unless the
author
accounts for these and other possible scenarios, the
author’s
recommendation
amount to
especially
poor advice for the Blamer
Island
Gazette.
Another threshold
assumption
upon which the
author’s
recommendation
is based
is that he or she
expects
the same 50 percent reduction in the
number
of
accidents
if similar
limits
are imposed
to the mopeds
rental
companies
.
Yet
, there is no
evidence
in the argument to substantiate this crucial
assumption
. Maybe the
number
of
accidents
would decrease by 30 percent, or maybe more. In short, until the
author
substantiate this
assumption
, I remain unconvinced that the recommended course of action would bring the same results in Blamer
Island
Gazette
to the desired extent.
In sum, the argument is
logically
flawed and
therefore
unconvincing in its
current
form. To bolster the argument, a
number
of questions are to
be answered
.
First
, whether all the factors regarding the
pedestrians
accident
were
essentially
the same. Second, whether the
number
of
accidents
are proportional to the
number
of mopeds.
Finally
, whether the utilization of equal
limits
would bring the exact same 50 percent decrease in the
number
of
pedestrians
accidents
in Blamer
Island
Gazette
.