Please evaluate this AWA: My first
[#permalink]
24 Feb 2017, 09:00
“While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance
costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year
maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad
companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode
of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a
third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more costeffective
and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines
already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense
of taxpaying citizens.”
The argument stated above is substantially flawed. It presents inconclusive information and is supported by dubious facts. The argument draws an unreasonably far-reaching conclusion.
Primarily, it is stated in the argument that the "trucking companies pay only a portion of the highway maintenance costs", this statement lacks the information that highways are not only used by trucks to deliver goods but are also utilised for normal transportation. Consequently, the maintenance cost is distributed over a larger base, resulting in lower maintenance cost for the trucking companies. The argument also uses vague language to present the first point of the argument. It should be noted that a portion of many billion dollars is still a substantial amount compared to billions utilised by the railways. The argument could have been strengthened had the author provided associated facts to support his claims containing the amount of money spent on maintenance, this along with the information about the portion paid by trucking companies for maintenance would have helped further.
Secondly, the argument asserts the point that sending goods via railways is more appropriate compared to highway shipping. This point doesn’t consider that " more appropriate" might have different meanings in different contexts. Appropriate is a relative term and should have a base for consideration. For some appropriate might stand for the load carrying capacity, whereas for others it might be the cost of transportation. This information is furthered by comparing the amount of fuel consumed by both the modes of transportation. Concluding that railways is eco-friendlier. This point lacks convincing because the argument doesn't state the type of fuel used in both the means of transportation. This has resulted in comparing apples with oranges. There is a possibility that the type of fuel used by railways is more damaging to the environment, even in low volumes, compared to truck fuel. Had the argument discussed the type of fuel and the environmental impact in detail, it would have cleared all doubt and presented a proper support statement.
Lastly, concluding the argument with the information that increase in rail traffic will not require further development in the rail roads, fails to consider that not all industries are situated near locations with railway yards in their vicinity. This will require further development of railway lines. Also, the transportation from the industries to the railyards and then from railyards to customers would again make use of highways.
It can be concluded that the argument presented above lacks in information and is not constructed in a sound manner. The statements are not backed by any examples or facts. If information was provided in support of the points above, the argument would have a strong case to support the conclusion drawn.