The argument claims that the installation of electronic, high-speed scanning devices at the entrances and exits of toll roads will obviate the need for toll booths. The argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that all scanning devices installed at the entrances and exits of toll roads and scanner sensitive license plates on automobiles will work properly at all conditions. It fails to consider the fact that these electronic devices and license plates can eventually wear off due to several factors i.e. age or environmental conditions such as rain, extreme heat or cold temperature etc. For example, due to rain, these scanning devices may break down and could not capture the license numbers of cars entering and exiting the toll road as required. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly mentioned that the scanning devices and scanner sensitive license plates will not wear off with its age or due to any other conditions.

Second, the argument claims that the installation of electronic, high-speed scanning devices at the entrances and exits of toll roads will obviate the need for toll booths. The claim is weak and unsupported as the argument does not provide insight on how it will deal with non ideal conditions. To illustrate, let's take an example of a Company X. Company X has recently installed an electronic access control system at the gate of its premise to restrict the unauthorized people to access the premise and removed the security guards who earlier were present at the gate to monitor the entry or exit. An employee has to use its access card to gain access to the company's premise. However, if the access card turns out to be defective, the authorized employee will not have access to the premise. There should be a solution to this problem. One solution could be the use of security guards who can give access to the employees in case of an emergency. Therefore, even if the company X installed electronic access control system, the need for security guards was not obviated. If the argument had provided evidence that there is a plan in place to address all kinds of defects that can be encountered while using electronic, high-speed scanning devices then the argument would have been lot more convincing.

Finally, what will happen if some automobiles do not have scanner sensitive license plates? How will these scanning devices record the license number of those cars? What will happen if the recorded license number is wrong? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if author mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.