argument task....prunty vs butler county

[dicapino]

In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County last year lowered its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour on all county highways. But this effort has failed: the number of accidents has not decreased, and, based on reports by the highway patrol, many drivers are exceeding the speed limit. Prunty County should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths, resurfacing rough highways, and improving visibility at dangerous intersections. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than there were five years ago.

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

*** I brainstormed points, then I used 30 mins to write...I am still practicing pls critique

The author avers that Prunty County should implement measures to reduce the number of road accidents because these measures were efficient in Butler County five years ago. While road maintenance and the likes can be a boon to less accidents, this argument has to show that both Counties are similar in all respect; also, it has to evince that Prunty can or will need to actually implement these road improvement projects and also give evidence of the amount of accidents that has occurred in Butler County to bolster his claim.

Firstly, this argument needs to show that Prunty has similar conditions to Butler. For this author claim to be plausible he has to give evidence that the number of residents, car owners and pedestrans are similar. Because if the number of cars on the Butler county roads are lesser than does in Prunty that could give a evidence why there were less accidents after implementing those projects. The author is give evidence of the population and car owner’s statistics in these counties, since success of a policy in one county does not guaranty success in another.

Also, the author needs to evince that Prunty County would implement the road improvement projects implemented in Butler. It could be that the roads in Prunty are already in good conditions and it would be waste of funds to effects the repairs. Conversely, Prunty may not have the funds to carry out these changes due to a tight county budget. The author has to show that Prunty County’s Budget can take care of these construction projects and the county’s roads are in bad conditions.

Thirdly, the author is advice to quantify the amount of accidents that occurred in Butler County five years ago and presently. Citing that there has been a 25 percent reduction in accidents could be construed as meaning a reduction from 100 to 75 accidents and does not lucidly bolster the argument why such measures implemented in Butler should be exemplified in Prunty. The author should disambiguate this by giving actual numbers.

In summary, the author’s views at reduction of accidents may be plausible and may be effective if implemented, but his method of propping his claims are vague and weak- and may be rejected by Prunty County’s leaders.