Please review, score, and provide any feedback. Thank you.
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.
The author of the passage asserts the Tarquinia should try and reduce their rate of traffic accidents by removing the safety features on the driver side of the vehicle and installing a spike on the steering wheel aimed at the driver's heart. The claim being made is that the previously mentioned deterents would eliminate traffic accidents as drivers would now be properly motivated to drive safely. The primary piece of evidence used in the argument is that in the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, these accidents are primarily due to driver negligence, and if properly incentivized all accidents would cease in Tarquinia. This claim is extremely dubious due to questionable assumptions of the evidence presented, practicality of instituting the desired changes, and a faulty leap of logic from assumption to conclusion even if the desired methods proved effective.
The courts find that in the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is negligent. The line of thinking assumes that the courts not only rule objectively, but that the driving laws, roads, average vehicle, and safety measures (i.e. stop signs, traffic lights, lights) are sufficient and don't play a substantial effect in a large number of these accidents. This rationale also doesn't take into account the drivers in accidents who weren't found to be at fault. These new additions and subtractions to the driver side of the vehicle would likely prove lethal to many of these innocent drivers. Instituting the changes mentioned in the argument also lack practicality in a real world environment. If one assumes that people value their lives, they are very likely not going to purchase or drive these new vehicles. Now that may lead to fewer accidents since less people are driving, but that likely isn't the anticipated result the author was striving for. Finally, the author claims that the vast majority of cases involve guilty drivers, but then claims his or her proposed changes would eliminate accidents. Wouldn't many of the cases where no drivers were found guilty still occur?
The argument would be strengthened if eliminate was changed to reduce. However, the practicality and suspect assumptions that are used in the claim make this a flawed thesis. The argument would be strengthened If more pieces of evidence were used such as: the frequency that safety measures were shown indisputably to be ignored, a survey for a lack of regard for the safety rules, or a survey on the perceived fairness of the court system. In conclusion, the author's argument is flawed, shows little convincing evidence, and makes incorrect leaps of logic.