The country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents p

"The country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person than its neighbors, and in the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. Therefore, Tarquinia should abolish driver-side seatbelts, airbags, and other safety measures that protect the driver, while new cars should be installed with a spike on the steering column pointed at the driver's heart. These measures will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia by motivating drivers to drive safely."

The author reaches that conclusion that Tarquinia should abolish safety measures for driver to eliminate traffic accidents because by doing so drivers are motivated to drive safely. The basis for the conclusion is that Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person than its neighbors. An additional reason given in support of the argument is that in most accidents at least one driver is found to be at fault in the courts. At the first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some important concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.

First, the author assume that higher rate of traffic accidents per person is highly correlated with driving safely. To some extent, this evidence does support the argument. However, the author ignores some crucial factors that also need to be included. The rate of traffic accidents per person can be misleading if Tarquinia’s neighbors do not have a lot of people who own cars. If this is the case, the rate of traffic accidents per person is certainly lower in Tarquinia’s neighbors than in Tarquinia. For example, the higher rate of traffic accidents per person in India is certainly lower than in United States because India is still a developing country and a large proportion of its people do not own a car. In the United State, most families have at least one car and thus the rate of traffic accidents per person is certainly higher. Therefore, the statistics used by author to support the argument do not support the argument.

Second, even if the right statistics are used, the author is using a unpersuasive evidence. In the argument, the author argues that people in Tarquinia are not driving safely because in most of cases at least one drive is found to be at fault. This evidence does not support anything because in most accidents, at least one party is at fault. For example, if no one is speeding, failing to stop at a red light, or making any other violations, there will be no accidents. Therefore, the evidence presented by the author is not convincing at all.

Last, even if convincing and persuasive evidences are used, the author’s proposal to solve the problem is flawed. Author argues that by removing all safety measures, driver will drive safely. This is not the case. Under such measures, driver are discouraged to drive instead of driving safely because they do not want to risk their lives to drive a car. Instead, perhaps they will choose other means of transportation such as buses, taxis, or subways. Also, removing safety measures is unfair for other drives who are already driving safely. Drivers who are driving safely should not be punished by such measures. Therefore, a better measure should be used to eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia.

The author’s argument is flawed and unconvincing because of above-mentioned reasons. It omits some important and relevant factors that should be taken into consideration. To better access the merit of the situations, all relevant factors should be considered in order to substantiate the argument.


Thank you for your help!