Analysis of an Argument
Official Guide Page 815
The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a local newspaper:
"It makes no sense that in most places 15-year-olds are not eligible for their driver's license while people who are far older can retain all of their driving privileges by simply renewing their license. If older drivers can get these renewals, often without having to pass another test, then 15-year-olds should be eligible to get a license. Fifteen-year-olds typically have much better eyesight, especially at night; much better hand-eye coordination; and much quicker reflexes. They are also less likely to feel confused by unepected developments or disoriented in unfamiliar surroundings and they recover from injuries more quickly."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
The argument concludes that first time 15-year-old drivers are more able to drive than their older counterparts who can simply renew their license without being retested. The author's argument is full of gaps since it presents a conclusion without much hard evidence. Neither are the author's premises or conclusions compelling. The argument is merely based on a hasty generalization.
First the author assumes that just because older counterparts have more experience, 15 year-olds drive better because of better eyesight. There is no empirical evidence to back up this claim. The author fails to mention that most drivers wear corrected vision hence it shouldn't matter how one group's eyesight compares to another group.
Second, the author states hand eye coordination and quick reflexes as beneficial for 15 year-old drivers. But where does it prove that having those traits translates well to driving. You may be good at catching a baseball with your hands, but handling a steering wheel is a different task. There needs to be more evidence of this claim.
Third, the author goes out of scope and mentions 15-year-olds less likely to be disoriented, but offers no proof in how this affects one's ability to drive. While an older counterpart may get lost more often, it does not state that it impairs their ability to drive. The author assumes that just getting lost means you are a bad driver.
The argument is the result of a huge speculation in which the author had made a considerable amount of assumptions. However, had the author taken the above topics in discussion, it would make his argument irrefutable. However, what he stated fails to provide a better idea of why 15-year-olds make better drivers.
Official Guide Page 815
The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a local newspaper:
"It makes no sense that in most places 15-year-olds are not eligible for their driver's license while people who are far older can retain all of their driving privileges by simply renewing their license. If older drivers can get these renewals, often without having to pass another test, then 15-year-olds should be eligible to get a license. Fifteen-year-olds typically have much better eyesight, especially at night; much better hand-eye coordination; and much quicker reflexes. They are also less likely to feel confused by unepected developments or disoriented in unfamiliar surroundings and they recover from injuries more quickly."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
The argument concludes that first time 15-year-old drivers are more able to drive than their older counterparts who can simply renew their license without being retested. The author's argument is full of gaps since it presents a conclusion without much hard evidence. Neither are the author's premises or conclusions compelling. The argument is merely based on a hasty generalization.
First the author assumes that just because older counterparts have more experience, 15 year-olds drive better because of better eyesight. There is no empirical evidence to back up this claim. The author fails to mention that most drivers wear corrected vision hence it shouldn't matter how one group's eyesight compares to another group.
Second, the author states hand eye coordination and quick reflexes as beneficial for 15 year-old drivers. But where does it prove that having those traits translates well to driving. You may be good at catching a baseball with your hands, but handling a steering wheel is a different task. There needs to be more evidence of this claim.
Third, the author goes out of scope and mentions 15-year-olds less likely to be disoriented, but offers no proof in how this affects one's ability to drive. While an older counterpart may get lost more often, it does not state that it impairs their ability to drive. The author assumes that just getting lost means you are a bad driver.
The argument is the result of a huge speculation in which the author had made a considerable amount of assumptions. However, had the author taken the above topics in discussion, it would make his argument irrefutable. However, what he stated fails to provide a better idea of why 15-year-olds make better drivers.
