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.”
The author concludes that 15-year-olds should have the right to obtain a driving license. To substantiate the conclusion, the author points out that since teenagers are stronger than elderly, such as better eyesight, better hand-eye coordination, quick reflexes, which are essential to driving quality. Moreover, juveniles are easily adaptable to unexpected developments or strange surroundings, and recover from injuries faster. This argument, however, fails to be persuasive for the author’s questionable assumptions which greatly undermine the reasoning.
Most conspicuously, this argument is based on the flawed assumption that only physical feature is the key to be an excellent driver. In fact, this is a dubious claim. Although such physical features as eyesight, hand-eye coordination and reflex, are mandatory to every driver, he or she must also have healthy mind. When people drive, they have to not only focus on the traffic, but also make a decision frequently. For example, changing lanes, turning, braking, speeds control all bases on personal judgment. The author does not guarantee that 15-year-olds are mature enough to fully develop decision-making ability. In case the teenagers fail to do so, road collisions would easily occur. If this is the case, then we should never approve of driving license to the youths at all.
Also, it is senseless to compare getting a license to renewing a license. According to the law of any countries, people can renew their driving licenses because they have been through the driving test before. If they obtain the driving license, they surely are experienced drivers. In contrast, amateur drivers have to show that they are capable of driving with quality and safety, do not harm others, and are clearly understand the traffic rules. These qualifications, however, are not limited to age. It does not mean that people who are old can waive the driving test either. Hence, the objection by attacking renewing license of older people is incomplete.
Finally, the author’s line of reasoning that 15-year-olds is quick to recover from accidental injuries is unreliable. Again, the author unreasonably involves the post-accident benefits in favor of teenagers. We should consider how to protect people from road injuries, rather than who better serve to be casualties. Therefore, the statement that 15-year-olds recover from injuries more quickly is not relevant to the discussion here.
In summary, this argument is unwarranted. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to provide additional evidence that healthy body is most important attribute of a good driver. No other qualification is crucial to drive safely on the road. In addition, the author has to prove that the ability to drive is weakened with aging, and thus renewing the driving license without passing driving test again is unfair. Without such evidences mentioned above, this argument remains logically unconvincing.
“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.”
The author concludes that 15-year-olds should have the right to obtain a driving license. To substantiate the conclusion, the author points out that since teenagers are stronger than elderly, such as better eyesight, better hand-eye coordination, quick reflexes, which are essential to driving quality. Moreover, juveniles are easily adaptable to unexpected developments or strange surroundings, and recover from injuries faster. This argument, however, fails to be persuasive for the author’s questionable assumptions which greatly undermine the reasoning.
Most conspicuously, this argument is based on the flawed assumption that only physical feature is the key to be an excellent driver. In fact, this is a dubious claim. Although such physical features as eyesight, hand-eye coordination and reflex, are mandatory to every driver, he or she must also have healthy mind. When people drive, they have to not only focus on the traffic, but also make a decision frequently. For example, changing lanes, turning, braking, speeds control all bases on personal judgment. The author does not guarantee that 15-year-olds are mature enough to fully develop decision-making ability. In case the teenagers fail to do so, road collisions would easily occur. If this is the case, then we should never approve of driving license to the youths at all.
Also, it is senseless to compare getting a license to renewing a license. According to the law of any countries, people can renew their driving licenses because they have been through the driving test before. If they obtain the driving license, they surely are experienced drivers. In contrast, amateur drivers have to show that they are capable of driving with quality and safety, do not harm others, and are clearly understand the traffic rules. These qualifications, however, are not limited to age. It does not mean that people who are old can waive the driving test either. Hence, the objection by attacking renewing license of older people is incomplete.
Finally, the author’s line of reasoning that 15-year-olds is quick to recover from accidental injuries is unreliable. Again, the author unreasonably involves the post-accident benefits in favor of teenagers. We should consider how to protect people from road injuries, rather than who better serve to be casualties. Therefore, the statement that 15-year-olds recover from injuries more quickly is not relevant to the discussion here.
In summary, this argument is unwarranted. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to provide additional evidence that healthy body is most important attribute of a good driver. No other qualification is crucial to drive safely on the road. In addition, the author has to prove that the ability to drive is weakened with aging, and thus renewing the driving license without passing driving test again is unfair. Without such evidences mentioned above, this argument remains logically unconvincing.
