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 you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter written by a reader of a local newspaper to its editor, the reader argues why 15-year olds are not eligible for a driver's license. On the contrary, he feels it makes little sense to renew licenses of much older people often without requiring them to pass another driving test. The author goes on to justify his support for 15-year olds to be eligible for driving licenses by claiming that they have a much better eyesight, especially at night, they have better hand-eye coordination, have quicker reflexes and are quick to heal from injuries. The author's argument is fraught with weaknesses.
Firstly, he completely omits to consider the lack of maturity usually found in 15-year olds. Handing the car keys to 'children' would spell disaster on the roads, since the 15-year olds could get carried away by the rush of blood while driving the vehicle. They may over-speed, not follow lane-driving and cause injuries to others and themselves.
Secondly, with quick reflexes, a driver also needs to have a good sense of judgement in order avert possible accidents. 15-year olds, on the other hand, are typically not evolved enough to have a superior sense of judgement. The society does not recognise their decision making capabilities at that age. No wonder, many countries do not offer voting rights to people less than the age of 18 or sometimes even 21!
Lastly, when the reader of the newspaper offers support to his argument in the letter by writing that 15-year olds should be made eligible for driver's license because they recover quicker from injuries leads anyone to believe that the writer undermines the injuries that could be caused to 15-year olds while driving on the roads. One is made to infer that the writer is comfortable with 15-year olds having injuries as long as they heal quickly! Also, he completely ignores the possibility of other drivers or pedestrians getting injured because of the poor driving of 15-year olds.
Although the writer has enumerated various points to prove his argument correct, he has completely ignored certain key issues which go against his argument. Some of his points may be valid such as 15-year olds have better reflexes and eye-sight; however some of his points seem logically weak.
"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 you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter written by a reader of a local newspaper to its editor, the reader argues why 15-year olds are not eligible for a driver's license. On the contrary, he feels it makes little sense to renew licenses of much older people often without requiring them to pass another driving test. The author goes on to justify his support for 15-year olds to be eligible for driving licenses by claiming that they have a much better eyesight, especially at night, they have better hand-eye coordination, have quicker reflexes and are quick to heal from injuries. The author's argument is fraught with weaknesses.
Firstly, he completely omits to consider the lack of maturity usually found in 15-year olds. Handing the car keys to 'children' would spell disaster on the roads, since the 15-year olds could get carried away by the rush of blood while driving the vehicle. They may over-speed, not follow lane-driving and cause injuries to others and themselves.
Secondly, with quick reflexes, a driver also needs to have a good sense of judgement in order avert possible accidents. 15-year olds, on the other hand, are typically not evolved enough to have a superior sense of judgement. The society does not recognise their decision making capabilities at that age. No wonder, many countries do not offer voting rights to people less than the age of 18 or sometimes even 21!
Lastly, when the reader of the newspaper offers support to his argument in the letter by writing that 15-year olds should be made eligible for driver's license because they recover quicker from injuries leads anyone to believe that the writer undermines the injuries that could be caused to 15-year olds while driving on the roads. One is made to infer that the writer is comfortable with 15-year olds having injuries as long as they heal quickly! Also, he completely ignores the possibility of other drivers or pedestrians getting injured because of the poor driving of 15-year olds.
Although the writer has enumerated various points to prove his argument correct, he has completely ignored certain key issues which go against his argument. Some of his points may be valid such as 15-year olds have better reflexes and eye-sight; however some of his points seem logically weak.
Thanks,
Bharat.
Bharat.
