Please rate my 1st essay..
The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter.
"While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies' property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them amore cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens."
The argument concludes that the Government should reduce the property tax paid by rail road company as in authors view it is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation as compared to Highway shipping.The author support the above claim by giving example of trucking companies that deliver good pay only a portion of maintenance costs and no property tax.The author supports railways by claiming that they consume less fuel and so they are environment friendly and cost effective.Additionally author claims that no new rail line would be need to handle increase in traffic.The argument is full of gaps and loop holes as it presents fragmentary evidences.Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling.The argument is evidently a result of hasty generalization.
Firstly the author commits a faulty analogy by saying that since the trucking company does not pay property tax, it should be reduced for rail companies also but fails to analyze the reason for property tax in case of railways.For example the infrastructure and maintenance cost for railways is far higher than that of highways.
Secondly authors takes many subjective factors in to accounts like railways should be used because they are fuel efficent and environment friendly but does not consider the factors about the reach of railways in all part of the country.Also the author does not consider the nature of good that cannot be carried by railways.Example perishable goods like milk, vegetables, fruits etc.The author fail to compare the time taken by railways and the trucks.
Finally the author supports the railways on claim that no additional rail line would be required to handle additional traffic but ignore the factors like requirement of warehouse, number or rail coaches and additional employee cost.Thus this point actually weakens the argument.
The argument is full of speculation as the author has assumed lot of data.The author's inability to fortify the argument is evident from the vague language used, wrong analogy and ignorance of certain factors in supporting the claim.Had the author considered the views presented above the argument would have rendered irrefutable, the argument in current form does not provide holistic picture.
The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter.
"While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies' property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them amore cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens."
The argument concludes that the Government should reduce the property tax paid by rail road company as in authors view it is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation as compared to Highway shipping.The author support the above claim by giving example of trucking companies that deliver good pay only a portion of maintenance costs and no property tax.The author supports railways by claiming that they consume less fuel and so they are environment friendly and cost effective.Additionally author claims that no new rail line would be need to handle increase in traffic.The argument is full of gaps and loop holes as it presents fragmentary evidences.Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling.The argument is evidently a result of hasty generalization.
Firstly the author commits a faulty analogy by saying that since the trucking company does not pay property tax, it should be reduced for rail companies also but fails to analyze the reason for property tax in case of railways.For example the infrastructure and maintenance cost for railways is far higher than that of highways.
Secondly authors takes many subjective factors in to accounts like railways should be used because they are fuel efficent and environment friendly but does not consider the factors about the reach of railways in all part of the country.Also the author does not consider the nature of good that cannot be carried by railways.Example perishable goods like milk, vegetables, fruits etc.The author fail to compare the time taken by railways and the trucks.
Finally the author supports the railways on claim that no additional rail line would be required to handle additional traffic but ignore the factors like requirement of warehouse, number or rail coaches and additional employee cost.Thus this point actually weakens the argument.
The argument is full of speculation as the author has assumed lot of data.The author's inability to fortify the argument is evident from the vague language used, wrong analogy and ignorance of certain factors in supporting the claim.Had the author considered the views presented above the argument would have rendered irrefutable, the argument in current form does not provide holistic picture.
