GMAT Essays (AWA)

Argument
The country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person than its neighbors, and in the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. Therefore, Tarquinia should abolish driver-side seatbelts, airbags, and other safety measures that protect the driver, while new cars should be installed with a spike on the steering column pointed at the driver's heart. These measures will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia by motivating drivers to drive safely.

Response
The argument holds that in order to decrease accidents, all safety devices should be abolished for the driver side. At the first glance, the claim seems to be persuasive. However, not every snazzy idea is necessarily accurate. The author fails to address other factors that might play a role in number of accidents within the country in compare to it's neighbours. To address flaws in the logic of the argument, we will answer some questions in the following paragraphes.

To start with, is the court prone to make mistakes? The author assumes that the court is completely accurate in its judgement while there might be a misjudgement happened in the court. As a case in point, lots of accidents might happened because other passengers interupt the driver by talking to the driver. It's substantial that the driver has full concentration on the road as he/she drives. This face conciderably casts doubt on the author's way of reasoning.

Next, are drivers faulty because the believe that their life is not at stake? The author's claim strongly based on the assumption that drivers will be more cautious if they are provided with considerable less security environment while driving. The argument fails to address other possibilities that might be the cause of driver's being careless. In some cases, drivers are driving 18 hours a day, and as a result barely can see the road. Therefore, they are more likely to make mistakes, and cause an accident. The more fatiged the driver, the more possibility to have an accident.

Finally, the argument limited itself to internal factors and fails how environmental factors can increase the accidents in streets. Factors such as road quality, sufficient amount of light, enough traffic signs, and adequate traffic equipments (such as traffic lights) can play a substantial role in rate of accidents. Blaming only the drivers while there are other factors in accidents as well is not an effective logic.

In a nutshell, the argument is fundamentally flawed in its way of reasoning. It will be more convincing to address all the factors that have a role within the process.