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."
In the preceding statement the author claims that a 15 year old should be eligible for their driver's license as older people can renew their driving privileges by renewing their driving license.
though his claim has well merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid author.
The primary issue with the author's premises is that a 15 year old cannot legally take the responsibility of his acts, in that case it will have to be the parents who will have to take that full responsibility same as a 16th year old driver's who do so as for today's date. In those cases if the teenager doesn't have the responsibility it will represent that he could potentially put in danger his parents freedom if bad actions like driving while drinking for a minor are detected on the new driver. In the future bad actions performed by the naive driver could be worst as his actions will remain on the records by the State and so he could have more trouble for being against the law due to his past.
The secondary issue is that the author is assuming that all older people has worse eyesight, hand eye coordination and reflexes. Even when this could be true it wouldn't be necessary the whole truth as the author is not including in his conclusion any facts of how he got that conclusion. Even if the teenager has a better sight and eye hand coordination and reflexes the author is not counting the experience that the older could have that overpasses the teenager by several times. Driving is no only about having the physical skills but also the knowledge acquired thru the time.
The third issue is that even when a 15 year old can recover faster from injuries it doesn't represent that the type of accidents that the teenager incurs are less relevant or less harmful than a older related to driving. It's well known that more teenagers die from car accidents that olders do.
In sum, the author's argument for allowing 15 year's old to get their driver's license is poorly defended I will render the conclusion as invalid.
"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."
In the preceding statement the author claims that a 15 year old should be eligible for their driver's license as older people can renew their driving privileges by renewing their driving license.
though his claim has well merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid author.
The primary issue with the author's premises is that a 15 year old cannot legally take the responsibility of his acts, in that case it will have to be the parents who will have to take that full responsibility same as a 16th year old driver's who do so as for today's date. In those cases if the teenager doesn't have the responsibility it will represent that he could potentially put in danger his parents freedom if bad actions like driving while drinking for a minor are detected on the new driver. In the future bad actions performed by the naive driver could be worst as his actions will remain on the records by the State and so he could have more trouble for being against the law due to his past.
The secondary issue is that the author is assuming that all older people has worse eyesight, hand eye coordination and reflexes. Even when this could be true it wouldn't be necessary the whole truth as the author is not including in his conclusion any facts of how he got that conclusion. Even if the teenager has a better sight and eye hand coordination and reflexes the author is not counting the experience that the older could have that overpasses the teenager by several times. Driving is no only about having the physical skills but also the knowledge acquired thru the time.
The third issue is that even when a 15 year old can recover faster from injuries it doesn't represent that the type of accidents that the teenager incurs are less relevant or less harmful than a older related to driving. It's well known that more teenagers die from car accidents that olders do.
In sum, the author's argument for allowing 15 year's old to get their driver's license is poorly defended I will render the conclusion as invalid.
