Traffic in the central city is the number one complaint of our residen

Hi there,

I wanted to post my response as well. Maybe I will get some feedback or maybe someone may find it useful.

PS: i followed "How to get 6.0 AWA....my guide" which is a great help!!! If ure struggling with an essay, take a good look at chineseburned's post!
how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html



Traffic in the central city is the number one complaint of our residents, so I urge you to consider this solution. We should invest in doubling our bus service and adding a light rail system, giving more options to those who don't want to drive through the city. Furthermore, we should make public transportation more accessible by reducing the fees to ride. With less traffic people will be more productive, and with higher productivity comes higher revenue and more taxes, so the system will likely pay for itself.

The argument claims that traffic is the number one complaint by the residents, so the author suggests a solution that is supposed to increase the public transportation ridership. This solution will need some investment but will result more productivity and higher revenue and more taxes. Hence, the author concludes that his solution will pay for itself. Stated this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that traffic in the central city will be tackled by doubling bus service, adding rail system and reducing fees. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The author assumes that providing more options to residents who don’t want to drive will decrease the traffic. There are numerous factors that contribute to traffic congestion such as road quality, overcrowded number of vehicles or an inefficient public transportation system. However, targeting commuters who don’t want to drive will be illogical and flawed. The author fails to mention any solution for commuters who have to drive due to their hectic schedules, unavailable transportation or their wish to drive. Also, the author fails to mention any information about the current public transportation situation and its capacity. What if the current system is already working at full capacity and the reduced fees will create even more ridership which will add more delays and overcrowded bus or rails? This way, the city traffic will be worse off since commuters are likely to choose to drive. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly gave information about the current cause of traffic congestion and the current public transportation situation.

Second, the argument claims that reduced traffic in the city will increase productivity and will result higher revenue and more taxes for the city government. This is again very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between traffic load and productivity. In fact, the author does not even draw a parallel with how the stress or complaint caused by the traffic congestion affect productivity. While it is undoubtedly true that higher productivity brings higher revenue and more taxes to the government, it is unclear if the productivity is slowed down only due to the traffic congestion. In addition, if the argument provided evidence that the reduced traffic leads to higher productivity and revenue, the argument could have been strengthened even further.

Finally, the author concludes that the investment for public transportation will likely to pay itself because the traffic will be decreased and the city government revenue and taxes will be increased. From this statement, again, it is not at all clear how the more bus service and additional rail system will contribute to higher productivity and revenue. Without supporting evidence and information how the reduced traffic increases revenue and taxes and returns the investment to the city, one is left with impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could have considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of the argument, it is essential to have all relevant factors.