Hi
Sajjad1994Requesting for reviewing this essay on basis if the undermentioned prompt :-
QUESTION“Replacing the Mathescam Bridge, which links Ottenville with Tottenville, will prove far less beneficial than would repairing the existing structure. The project will unjustly hurt drivers because the Ottenville mayor recommended - shortly just before $12 million new bridge proposal was announced - that bridge tolls be raised by 50 percent. Since drivers' main complaints have been uneven pavement and closed lanes, the Mathescam bridge the Mathescam Bridge Authority should not hike tolls and instead repair the existing bridge, shifting maintenance crews to the evening, when a few drivers are on the roads.”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.ESSAY The argument under reference, possibly an extract from the local newspaper, recommends carrying out repairs to the existing Mathescam bridge, over the planned construction of a new bridge to replace the old, heavily used bridge on the sole premise that the planned construction will trouble the drivers over the long construction duration, as also will lead to hike in tolls. While the argument seems convincing in the initial glance, on a deeper analysis it comes to the fore that the author has not furnished adequate supporting evidence and examples to support the argument. Besides the lack of such evidence, the argument also suffers from critical flaws as well as doubtful assumptions affecting the logical soundness of the argument, which have been described in the succeeding paragraphs.
Firstly, the author fails to provide comparisons regarding the sustenance and efficacy of the new bridge, as compared to those aspects of the repaired existing bridge. There is a high probability that the new bridge will be beneficial considering the future increases in traffic connecting the two cities with development in trade connections as well as movement of population.
Secondly, the author also needs to consider the technical aspects of the new bridge as compared to the repaired bridge. Since the new bridge will incorporate the modern techniques, it can be assumed that the new bridge would be safer. Also, considering the futuristic increase in traffic, enhanced safety may be a well considered decision.
Thirdly, the author highlights that the construction costs for the new bridge will unjustly hurt drivers for the long duration of construction, as also lead to hike in tolls. However, there is a high probability that the population, in general, may favour the construction of new bridge due to availability of additional lanes, increased safety etc. The author needs to provide suitable evidence in the form of mass surveys to highlight the popular preference regarding the two available options.
Towards increasing the logical soundness of the argument, the author needs to populate his argument through comparative depiction of technical parameters, surveys, cost aspects and toll rates regarding both choices -- the new bridge vis-a-vis the existing repaired bridge. Simultaneously, the views of experts also need to be incorporated by the author to support his argument.
In essence, the reference argument, in its existing state, is logically inconsistent, primarily owing to doubtful assumptions and lack of suitable supporting evidence and examples. The author needs to incorporate surveys, comparison matrix regarding technical parameters as also the expert views to improve the logical soundness of the argument. Key parameters for the repaired bridge, in comparison to those for the new bridge, also need to be evaluated by the author to comprehensively substantiate his claims favoring repairs to the existing bridge over replacement by a new bridge.