Self-study
Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article "Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy." The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. ████████ ████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ███ █████ █████ ███████████████ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ████ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The letter concludes that the evidence supports increasing speed limits, even though areas with lower speed limits also have lower vehicle fatality rates. This is based on the observation that fatality rates are rising in areas with lower speed limits.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The letter’s argument is flawed because it draws a conclusion about the safety of areas with low speed limits relative to other areas, while only considering evidence about areas with low speed limits. In other words, the argument fails to consider whether the same increase in fatality rates is happening in areas with higher speed limits.
9.
The reasoning in the letter ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
a
bases its conclusion ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ██ ███████████
The argument does base its conclusion on findings from the article which it criticizes, but this isn’t a flaw, because the argument seeks to prove that the article misinterpreted the evidence. So, it actually has to show that the same evidence leads to a different conclusion.
b
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████████
Whether high-speed accidents “often” cause fatalities isn’t relevant to the argument. The argument is specifically about the fatality rates in low-speed-limit versus high-speed-limit areas, and this possibility wouldn’t help to make that determination.
c
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ █████ ██████
Whether or not people want to drive faster is irrelevant to the argument, because it doesn’t impact the issue of whether raising speed limits would be safer.
d
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ███████████████ ████████ █████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ████ ██████
The argument draws a conclusion that a higher speed limit is safer based only on evidence about rising fatality rates in low-speed-limit areas. Without knowing whether fatality rates are also rising in high-speed-limit areas, this just isn’t enough to support the conclusion.
e
does not present ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████████
The argument does present claims as evidence against the opposing viewpoint: specifically, the increasing fatality rate in low-speed-limit areas.