Robert: Speed limits on residential streets in Crownsbury are routinely ignored by drivers. ██████ ████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ███████ █████ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ████████
███████ ████ ██ █ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ █ █████ █████
Robert points out that drivers in Crownsbury routinely ignore speed limits on residential streets, which is dangerous for pedestrians. Since the city doesn't have enough police officers to patrol each street, Robert suggests installing speed bumps, with signs warning that there are speed bumps, on residential streets.
Sheila rejects this suggestion on the grounds that, if drivers are going too fast, speed bumps can cause them to lose control of their vehicles.
Sheila counters Robert's proposal. She does this by pointing out an undesirable consequence that could arise from Robert's suggestion. If speed bumps cause cars to lose control of their vehicles, the overall effect of Robert's proposal might not be to make pedestrians safer, as he assumes, but actually to make things more dangerous for both pedestrians and drivers.
The relationship of Sheila's statement ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ █████████
raises the objection ████ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██
argues that the ████████ ██████ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███
defends an alternative ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ██████
concedes that the ████████ █████████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███ █████ █████ ██ ██████
charges that Robert's ████████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████████