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 driving 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 unexpected developments
or disoriented in unfamiliar surroundings, and they recover from injuries more quickly."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
---------
The author states that if older drivers can retain their driving license without having to pass driving test, then 15-year-olds should also be eligible to get a license. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, based on which the argument could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is rather weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that 15-year-olds are not eligible for their driver's license, while people who are far older are able to retain their license by simply renewing them. The author goes to the extent stating that 15-year-olds typically have much better eye-sight, especially at night, better hand-eye coordination, and much quicker reflexes. This is again very weak and unsupported claim as argument does demonstrate the correlation between older drivers and 15-year-olds as far as the skill sets are concerned. Had author gave the data showing the clear distinction between the two then the argument would have been much stronger. Furthermore, the argument provides the evidence that 15-years-olds recover from the injuries quicker than older ones could. This is again not supported by facts such as, age group for older people, kind of test conducted, environment, etc. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
Second, the argument readily assumes that older drivers means people above 70 years those who lost their eyesight, hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and many more explained in the argument. Older drivers can be classified inv various age groups such as 20 to 30 age, 30 to 40 age, and so on. Clearly, if we look at the first two age groups, we won't say that these people have lost their eyesight, hand-eye coordination, and reflexes. The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated assumptions. To illustrate, author does not say anything about why the older drivers retain their driving privilege by simply renewing? The governing agency is not fool to provide license to rash drivers. The agencies do have certain norms and regulations; under the compliance of these conditions, one will be provided with driving license. So, it is a joke to say that driving licenses are getting freely awarded or renewed.
In addition to this, author states that 15-year-olds should be eligible to get a license, because they have better response to the unexpected developments or unfamiliar surrounding, and hence they can recover from injuries more quickly than older can. This is again a flawed logic. If this was the case then man could have sent children on the space mission, or fighter aircrafts could have been handled by children, because they are agile than older. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication for the links.
While, the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions that is not say that the entire argument is without base. If the argument had provided evidence that older drivers, that is, those who are really in bad shape should be disbanded and 15-year-olds those who are mature enough to go for driving pass a preliminary test; then the argument would have been a lot more convincing. In other words, though there are issues with the author's reasoning at present, with the research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate the assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument is likely to convince few people.
"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 driving 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 unexpected developments
or disoriented in unfamiliar surroundings, and they recover from injuries more quickly."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
---------
The author states that if older drivers can retain their driving license without having to pass driving test, then 15-year-olds should also be eligible to get a license. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, based on which the argument could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is rather weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that 15-year-olds are not eligible for their driver's license, while people who are far older are able to retain their license by simply renewing them. The author goes to the extent stating that 15-year-olds typically have much better eye-sight, especially at night, better hand-eye coordination, and much quicker reflexes. This is again very weak and unsupported claim as argument does demonstrate the correlation between older drivers and 15-year-olds as far as the skill sets are concerned. Had author gave the data showing the clear distinction between the two then the argument would have been much stronger. Furthermore, the argument provides the evidence that 15-years-olds recover from the injuries quicker than older ones could. This is again not supported by facts such as, age group for older people, kind of test conducted, environment, etc. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
Second, the argument readily assumes that older drivers means people above 70 years those who lost their eyesight, hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and many more explained in the argument. Older drivers can be classified inv various age groups such as 20 to 30 age, 30 to 40 age, and so on. Clearly, if we look at the first two age groups, we won't say that these people have lost their eyesight, hand-eye coordination, and reflexes. The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated assumptions. To illustrate, author does not say anything about why the older drivers retain their driving privilege by simply renewing? The governing agency is not fool to provide license to rash drivers. The agencies do have certain norms and regulations; under the compliance of these conditions, one will be provided with driving license. So, it is a joke to say that driving licenses are getting freely awarded or renewed.
In addition to this, author states that 15-year-olds should be eligible to get a license, because they have better response to the unexpected developments or unfamiliar surrounding, and hence they can recover from injuries more quickly than older can. This is again a flawed logic. If this was the case then man could have sent children on the space mission, or fighter aircrafts could have been handled by children, because they are agile than older. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication for the links.
While, the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions that is not say that the entire argument is without base. If the argument had provided evidence that older drivers, that is, those who are really in bad shape should be disbanded and 15-year-olds those who are mature enough to go for driving pass a preliminary test; then the argument would have been a lot more convincing. In other words, though there are issues with the author's reasoning at present, with the research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate the assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument is likely to convince few people.
