Argument 71 essay: Letter to newspaper editor about traffic in Waymarsh

[Peterwu1988]

I have few ideas about how to write a good argument, may you help me and rate me? Thanks！

The following is a letter to the editor of the Waymarsh Times

Traffic here in Waymarsh is becoming a problem. Although just three years ago a state traffic survey showed that the typical driving commuter took 20 minutes to get to work, the commute now takes closer to 40 minutes, according to the survey just completed. Members of the town council already have suggested more road building to address the problem, but as well as being expensive, the new construction will surely disrupt some of our residential neighborhoods. It would be better to follow the example of the nearby city of Garville. Last year Garville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work, giving them coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Garville have dropped since the policy was implemented, and people from Garville tell me that commuting times have fallen considerably. There is no reason why a policy like Garville’s shouldn’t work equally well in Waymarsh.

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.

 The idea this argument suggests seem somehow convincing at first glance, but there are many points appearing to be obscure. Besides making those ideas clearer, the argument also needs further information to make the proposal more intact and persuasive.
 First, the argument says that the average commuting time now has increased from 20 to 40 minutes because of heavier traffic, but the number will be representative only when the distribution of the driving time for each person has no large standard deviation. If the standard deviation is unexpectedly huge, the driving time for each person can vary from, for instance, 1 minutes to 2 hours. If the statistics had been affected by minute new commuters who have to drive for a long time to go to work, the average commuting time can skyrocket while there actually is no traffic problem. Therefore, the author of this argument needs to include some more direct and lucid descriptions about how bad the traffic problems really is, for example, “80% of the population has to drive at least 40 minutes to get to work” or “Only less than 10% of the population’s commuting time is less than 40 minutes now”.
 The next point which seem unclear is the disapproval of constructing more roads. The argument claims that road building is expensive and disruptive, which fails to really provide enough reasons to abandon it. The construction may be expensive, indeed, but if it can solve the problem in the long run, it can still be a good solution once the government has enough financial support. Besides, this would not only shorten the commuting time but also increase the capacity for automobiles, which might absorb more people, contributing to the prosperity of the city. The disruption to some of residential districts is sometimes unavoidable when important public constructions is needed. If appropriate compensation can be applied to people who need to move, it will not be a considerable issue. 
 The last point that should be more persuasive is the mention of the city Garville. Obviously, the policy which the author suggests did work well in Graville, but is the same effect reproducible when applied to another city? If the general population in Waymarsh are wealthier than those in Garville, people might not consider the reward to be important to them. If so, lots of people may still maintain the same habbit, for example, driving alone without consideration to save just a tiny amount of money. The benefit of reducing air pollution also will not come if the policy do not work in Waymarsh.
 In conclusion, the result of the proposed policy worked pretty well in Garville, but the existing evidence do not fully support it to be used in Waymarsh. In order to solve the traffic problem, additional information is needed for any pragmatic act to take place.

[Beeesneees]

TITLE EDITED.
Please help everyone to make the most of this forum and its resources by giving your threads meaningful and relevant subject lines.

[Luschen]

Hi, I thought your writing was pretty good, but you seem to have left a lot of possible arguments unexplored.

@Peterwu1988

I have few ideas about how to write a good argument, may you help me and rate me? Thanks！

The following is a letter to the editor of the Waymarsh Times

Traffic here in Waymarsh is becoming a problem. Although just three years ago a state traffic survey showed that the typical driving commuter took 20 minutes to get to work, the commute now takes closer to 40 minutes, according to the survey just completed. Members of the town council already have suggested more road building to address the problem, but as well as being expensive, the new construction will surely disrupt some of our residential neighborhoods. It would be better to follow the example of the nearby city of Garville. Last year Garville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work, giving them coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Garville have dropped since the policy was implemented, and people from Garville tell me that commuting times have fallen considerably. There is no reason why a policy like Garville’s shouldn’t work equally well in Waymarsh.

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.

 The idea[s ] this argument suggests seem somehow convincing at first glance, but there are many points appearing to be obscure. Besides making those ideas clearer, the argument also needs further information to make the proposal more intact{"intact" is not really correct} and persuasive.
 First, the argument says that the average commuting time now has increased from 20 to 40 minutes because of heavier traffic, but the number will be representative only when the distribution of the driving time for each person has no large standard deviation.{this is not that clear to me - how can one person's driving time have a large standard deviation?  only if they drive different distances each day - I think you mean the driving times of all the drivers} If the standard deviation is unexpectedly huge, the driving time for each person can vary from, for instance, 1 minutes to 2 hours. If the statistics had been affected by minute{"minute" makes it sound like the commuters are tiny little people - maybe "a minute number of new …"}  new commuters who have to drive for a long time to go to work, the average commuting time can skyrocket while there actually is no traffic problem. Therefore, the author of this argument needs to include some more direct and lucid descriptions about how bad the traffic problems really is,{problems/is mismatch} for example, “80% of the population has to drive at least 40 minutes to get to work” or “ Only less than 10% of the population’s commuting time is less than 40 minutes now”. {this two "less thans" is a little awkward - maybe "only a small fraction of the populations …"}   {this argument seemed a little weak to me and maybe too wordy.  I would explore additional possible reasons - maybe people are driving longer distances, which would cause the commuting time to go up.  Perhaps a new housing development was built farther away from town, or a large employer opened a factory which is far away from most of its workers.  Maybe more people in Waymarsh are working in other towns, which would affect the commute times} 
 The next point which seem[s ] unclear is the disapproval of {"for" seems better in this context} constructing more roads. The argument claims that road building is expensive and disruptive, which fails to really provide enough reasons to abandon it. The construction may be expensive, indeed, but if it can solve the problem in the long run, it can still be a good solution once the government has enough financial support.{the "once the government has enough financial support" seems a little vague to me} Besides, this would not only shorten the commuting time but also increase the capacity for automobiles, which might absorb{"absorb" doesn't quite work here, as the capacity doesn't really absorb, it just allows for more people}  more people, contributing to the prosperity of the city. The disruption to some of residential districts is sometimes unavoidable when important public constructions is needed. If appropriate compensation can be applied{"applied" is not really right here - "apportioned" might be better} to people who need to move, it will not be a considerable issue. 
 The last point that should be more persuasive {I don't think the point is really persuasiveness, it is more the lack of data or missing information} is the mention of the city [of] Garville. Obviously, the policy which the author suggests did work well in Graville, {why is this obvious? I can see some holes in their argument} but is the same effect reproducible when applied to another city? If the general population in Waymarsh are wealthier than those in Garville, people might not consider the reward to be important to them. If so, lots of people may still maintain the same habbit,[habit] for example, driving alone without consideration to save just a tiny amount of money.{this sounds like driving alone is saving them money, which is not what I think you mean} The benefit of reducing air pollution also will not come if the policy do[es] not work in Waymarsh. {these are not bad, but the big issue is the data about Garville - "people form Garville tell me" - what people?  it sounds like he asked a couple of friends.  This is anecdotal information and should not be used to make such a big decision.  A survey with the same parameters as that give in Waymarsh should be used if one wants to compare the two cities.  Also, cars mainly cause air pollution.  But we are talking about the air pollution in a very localized area.  Only a small part of a location's air pollution is caused  by local sources - maybe cars in nearby towns have gotten cleaner or perhaps the wind patterns have changed so that not as much polluted air is blowing into Garville.  Even if local sources are included, there are many causes of air pollution besides cars. Maybe the local factories or power plants have installed pollution-reducing equipment lately, or perhaps have shut down or gone out of business.}
 In conclusion, the result of the proposed policy worked pretty well in Garville, but the existing evidence do not fully support it to be used in Waymarsh. In order to solve the traffic problem, additional information is needed for any pragmatic act to take place.

[Luschen]

Hi, I thought your writing was pretty good, but you seem to have left a lot of possible arguments unexplored.

@Peterwu1988

I have few ideas about how to write a good argument, may you help me and rate me? Thanks！

The following is a letter to the editor of the Waymarsh Times

Traffic here in Waymarsh is becoming a problem. Although just three years ago a state traffic survey showed that the typical driving commuter took 20 minutes to get to work, the commute now takes closer to 40 minutes, according to the survey just completed. Members of the town council already have suggested more road building to address the problem, but as well as being expensive, the new construction will surely disrupt some of our residential neighborhoods. It would be better to follow the example of the nearby city of Garville. Last year Garville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work, giving them coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Garville have dropped since the policy was implemented, and people from Garville tell me that commuting times have fallen considerably. There is no reason why a policy like Garville’s shouldn’t work equally well in Waymarsh.

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.

 The idea[s ] this argument suggests seem somehow convincing at first glance, but there are many points appearing to be obscure. Besides making those ideas clearer, the argument also needs further information to make the proposal more intact{"intact" is not really correct} and persuasive.
 First, the argument says that the average commuting time now has increased from 20 to 40 minutes because of heavier traffic, but the number will be representative only when the distribution of the driving time for each person has no large standard deviation.{this is not that clear to me - how can one person's driving time have a large standard deviation?  only if they drive different distances each day - I think you mean the driving times of all the drivers} If the standard deviation is unexpectedly huge, the driving time for each person can vary from, for instance, 1 minutes to 2 hours. If the statistics had been affected by minute{"minute" makes it sound like the commuters are tiny little people - maybe "a minute number of new …"}  new commuters who have to drive for a long time to go to work, the average commuting time can skyrocket while there actually is no traffic problem. Therefore, the author of this argument needs to include some more direct and lucid descriptions about how bad the traffic problems really is,{problems/is mismatch} for example, “80% of the population has to drive at least 40 minutes to get to work” or “ Only less than 10% of the population’s commuting time is less than 40 minutes now”. {this two "less thans" is a little awkward - maybe "only a small fraction of the populations …"}   {this argument seemed a little weak to me and maybe too wordy.  I would explore additional possible reasons - maybe people are driving longer distances, which would cause the commuting time to go up.  Perhaps a new housing development was built farther away from town, or a large employer opened a factory which is far away from most of its workers.  Maybe more people in Waymarsh are working in other towns, which would affect the commute times} 
 The next point which seem[s ] unclear is the disapproval of {"for" seems better in this context} constructing more roads. The argument claims that road building is expensive and disruptive, which fails to really provide enough reasons to abandon it. The construction may be expensive, indeed, but if it can solve the problem in the long run, it can still be a good solution once the government has enough financial support.{the "once the government has enough financial support" seems a little vague to me} Besides, this would not only shorten the commuting time but also increase the capacity for automobiles, which might absorb{"absorb" doesn't quite work here, as the capacity doesn't really absorb, it just allows for more people}  more people, contributing to the prosperity of the city. The disruption to some of residential districts is sometimes unavoidable when important public constructions is needed. If appropriate compensation can be applied{"applied" is not really right here - "apportioned" might be better} to people who need to move, it will not be a considerable issue. 
 The last point that should be more persuasive {I don't think the point is really persuasiveness, it is more the lack of data or missing information} is the mention of the city [of] Garville. Obviously, the policy which the author suggests did work well in Graville, {why is this obvious? I can see some holes in their argument} but is the same effect reproducible when applied to another city? If the general population in Waymarsh are wealthier than those in Garville, people might not consider the reward to be important to them. If so, lots of people may still maintain the same habbit,[habit] for example, driving alone without consideration to save just a tiny amount of money.{this sounds like driving alone is saving them money, which is not what I think you mean} The benefit of reducing air pollution also will not come if the policy do[es] not work in Waymarsh. {these are not bad, but the big issue is the data about Garville - "people from Garville tell me" - what people?  it sounds like he asked a couple of friends.  This is anecdotal information and should not be used to make such a big decision.  A survey with the same parameters as that given in Waymarsh should be used if one wants to compare the two cities.  Also, cars mainly cause air pollution.  But we are talking about the air pollution in a very localized area.  Only a small part of a location's air pollution is caused  by local sources - maybe cars in nearby towns have gotten cleaner or perhaps the wind patterns have changed so that not as much polluted air is blowing into Garville.  Even if local sources are included, there are many causes of air pollution besides cars. Maybe the local factories or power plants have installed pollution-reducing equipment lately, or perhaps have shut down or gone out of business.}
 In conclusion, the result of the proposed policy worked pretty well in Garville, but the existing evidence do not fully support it to be used in Waymarsh. In order to solve the traffic problem, additional information is needed for any pragmatic act to take place.

[Peterwu1988]

Thank you so much. I did neglect lots of discussible points that are more untenable than the points I targeted.