The author of the above passage recommends that Cadbury's residents should vote to allow Plexma to begin manufacturing and selling self-driving cars in Canbury. However, the argument is unpersuasive to allow stated argument, because it is based on several questionable assumptions. The following essay will discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on the passage are reasonable.
First of all the author assumes that the cited recent survey is reliable, however, this may not be the case. The survey shows only partial information about the survey participants. The survey said 60percent of residents will likely to buy a car in the near future. However, without the whole number of the participants, ration only is not a reliable statistic. If the population of the survey is not large enough, 60% of the positive answer is not enough to support the author's argument. Moreover, if the residents participate in the survey are not the people from Canbury, this results could not represent the opinion of Canbury residents. Also, the expression 'in the future' is a vague expression that needs more accurate definition. 'in the future' could be tomorrow or 3years later, especially in case of purchasing expensive products such as a self-driving car. For this reason, the writer should not readily conclude that the survey report is reliable without further questions asking the descriptive information regarding participants, and more detailed date of the 'future'.
Second, the author argues that their vehicles are safe, based on a last summer experiment reports. However, the information suggested in the above passage may also be flawed. In the passage, the experiment done last summer had a great success. Even the definition of great success itself is vague, but also the detailed information are groundless too. Tested vehicles are only 5, and surely, this is not enough number to evaluate the safety of a normal vehicle. Considering that this car is new type of car, more than 30 cars need to be tested. Also, 2 months of driving is not enough to draw a general trend of the vehicle's driving safety. To figure out whether this car is really safe or not further driving test would be needed. And, like I mentioned above paragraph, the whole population of the Canbury residents and the population of the participants need to be asked too, to find out this report really represent the major population of Canbury town. Therefore, in order to judge if the experiment was really successful, further proof questioning such as cited information is necessary.
In conclusion, further questions asking more detailed evidence required for an adequate assessment or a more persuasive argument.
The author of the above
passage
recommends that
Cadbury
's
residents
should vote to
allow
Plexma
to
begin
manufacturing and selling self-driving
cars
in
Canbury
.
However
, the
argument
is unpersuasive to
allow
stated
argument
,
because
it
is based
on several questionable assumptions. The following essay will discuss what questions would
need
to
be answered
in order to decide whether the recommendation and the
argument
on the
passage
are reasonable.
First of all
the author assumes that the cited recent
survey
is reliable,
however
, this may not be the case. The
survey
shows
only
partial
information
about the
survey
participants
. The
survey
said 60percent of
residents
will likely to
buy
a
car
in the near future.
However
, without the whole number of the
participants
, ration
only
is not a reliable statistic. If the
population
of the
survey
is not large
enough
, 60% of the
positive
answer is not
enough
to support the author's
argument
.
Moreover
, if the
residents
participate in the
survey
are not the
people
from
Canbury
,
this
results could not represent the opinion of
Canbury
residents
.
Also
, the expression 'in the future' is a vague expression that
needs
more accurate definition. '
in
the future' could be tomorrow or 3years later,
especially
in case of purchasing expensive products such as a self-driving
car
.
For this reason
, the writer should not
readily
conclude that the
survey
report is reliable without
further
questions asking the descriptive
information
regarding
participants
, and more detailed date of the 'future'.
Second, the author argues that their vehicles are safe, based on a last summer experiment reports.
However
, the
information
suggested in the above
passage
may
also
be flawed
. In the
passage
, the experiment done last summer had a great success. Even the definition of great success itself is vague,
but
also
the detailed
information
are groundless too.
Tested
vehicles are
only
5, and
surely
, this is not
enough
number to evaluate the safety of a normal vehicle. Considering that this
car
is new type of
car
, more than 30
cars
need
to be
tested
.
Also
, 2 months of driving is not
enough
to draw a general trend of the vehicle's driving safety. To figure out whether this
car
is
really
safe or not
further
driving
test
would
be needed
. And, like I mentioned above paragraph, the whole
population
of the
Canbury
residents
and the
population
of the
participants
need
to
be asked
too, to find out this report
really
represent the major
population
of
Canbury
town.
Therefore
, in order to judge if the experiment was
really
successful,
further
proof questioning such as cited
information
is necessary.
In conclusion
,
further
questions asking more detailed evidence required for an adequate assessment or a more persuasive
argument
.