Argument:
Some states are creating new laws that restrict the use of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles. Such legislation, however, is sheer folly. Although some people with cell phones undoubtedly cause problems on the road, including serious accidents, the majority do not. Besides, problems are also caused by drivers who are distracted by a number of other activities, from listening music to the radio to disciplining children. Since there is no need to pass legislation restricting these and other such activities, it follows that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient - or helpful in emergencies.
Response:
The argument claims that creating new laws that restrict the use of handheld phones by the drivers will be sheer folly, and that majority of people with cell phones do not cause any serious problems on the road, and hence such legislation is not required to be passed. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on the assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the majority of people with the cell phones do not cause any serious problem on the road. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous examples of the road accidents with fatal injuries that involve the people using cell phones while driving vehicles. For instance, an accident with fatal injuries to more than 50 people and casualties of more than ten people in the city of London last year raised many questions on the use of handheld phones while driving. The author fails to provide evidence that the majority of people with cell phones do not cause problem. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly provided supporting data, or a result of survey as to how majority of people with cell phones do not cause problem on the road.
Second, the argument claims that the accidents are caused by the drivers who are distracted by other activities such as listening to radio, disciplining to children besides others. It thus suggests that this is a reason for not creating a new rule that can restrict the use of handheld phones. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument fails to provide sufficient supporting evidence that the major accidents on the road do not involve people with cell phones and these accidents are caused by other factors such as listening to the radio.
Finally, the argument concludes that there is no need to create such a rule to restrict use handheld phones because creation of such a rule will restrict people's freedom of using this device, which is a very useful device in case of emergency. From this statement again, it is not all clear how the creation of a rule will restrict the freedom of people. Without supporting evidence and examples from other such legislations where the freedom of people has been restricted because of passing of such legislation, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no leg to stand upon.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
Some states are creating new laws that restrict the use of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles. Such legislation, however, is sheer folly. Although some people with cell phones undoubtedly cause problems on the road, including serious accidents, the majority do not. Besides, problems are also caused by drivers who are distracted by a number of other activities, from listening music to the radio to disciplining children. Since there is no need to pass legislation restricting these and other such activities, it follows that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient - or helpful in emergencies.
Response:
The argument claims that creating new laws that restrict the use of handheld phones by the drivers will be sheer folly, and that majority of people with cell phones do not cause any serious problems on the road, and hence such legislation is not required to be passed. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on the assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the majority of people with the cell phones do not cause any serious problem on the road. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous examples of the road accidents with fatal injuries that involve the people using cell phones while driving vehicles. For instance, an accident with fatal injuries to more than 50 people and casualties of more than ten people in the city of London last year raised many questions on the use of handheld phones while driving. The author fails to provide evidence that the majority of people with cell phones do not cause problem. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly provided supporting data, or a result of survey as to how majority of people with cell phones do not cause problem on the road.
Second, the argument claims that the accidents are caused by the drivers who are distracted by other activities such as listening to radio, disciplining to children besides others. It thus suggests that this is a reason for not creating a new rule that can restrict the use of handheld phones. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument fails to provide sufficient supporting evidence that the major accidents on the road do not involve people with cell phones and these accidents are caused by other factors such as listening to the radio.
Finally, the argument concludes that there is no need to create such a rule to restrict use handheld phones because creation of such a rule will restrict people's freedom of using this device, which is a very useful device in case of emergency. From this statement again, it is not all clear how the creation of a rule will restrict the freedom of people. Without supporting evidence and examples from other such legislations where the freedom of people has been restricted because of passing of such legislation, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no leg to stand upon.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
