In this argument, the writer argues that all students should be required to take the driver's education course at Centerville High School. The writer's reasoning is based on several accidents in and around Centerville over the past two years that involved teenage drivers, and that parents have complained that they are too busy to teach their own teenagers to drive. The writer also states that although there are two driving schools in Centerville, some parents cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. The writer's argument is based on faulty logic and suffers from several critical flaws.
In the first place, the writer cites several accidents over the past two years in and around Centerville involving teenagers as evidence that they should be required to take a driver's education course at the high school. The writer assumes that these accidents were caused by the teenagers' lack of driver's education, which may or may not be the case.
There is no evidence presented that directly shows a causal link between the teenagers' lack of driver's education and the cause of the accidents. It is entirely possible that these teenagers had already had the driver's education courses, and that the accidents were simply unavoidable or even the other driver's fault. Without further direct causal evidence, the writer's argument fails to convince that all teenagers should be required to take the driver's education course. Secondly, the writer produces no evidence that shows a direct link between the driver's education course at Centerville High School and the prevention of accidents involving teenage drivers.
The writer assumes such a causal linkage but delivers nothing other than his or her personal opinion as evidence that the driver's education course helps prevent accidents. Furthermore, the writer states that all students should be required to take the driver's education course. The writer fails to take into consideration students that do not drive, as well as students that may have already taken a driver's education course elsewhere. Even assuming the value of the high school's driver's education course, there will obviously be no reduction in teenagers' accidents if the students do not drive in the first place. Additionally, it is doubtful that repeating the driver's education course will result in any further reduction in accidents involving teenagers.
For these reasons, the writer's argument again falls short of convincing the reader of the value of mandatory high school driver's education. Finally, the writer states that an effective and mandatory driver's education program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem. Again, the writer falsely assumes that the only cause of such accidents is the lack of teenagers' driver's education, for which there is no support whatsoever in the argument. A better course of action would be to determine the true cause of such accidents, then tailor a solution to address the specific causes of the problem, rather than imposing a mandatory driver's education program on all students.
Perhaps mandatory driver's education for all drivers would be a better solution, but there is no basis present in the argument on which to single out students and their lack of driver's education as the source of the problem of accidents in Centerville. In summary, the writer's argument looks logical at first glance, but a closer inspection reveals that it is based on faulty logic. There is no evidence presented that a lack of driver's education for students is the cause of the problem in Centerville; therefore there is no basis for forcing all students to take the program. To strengthen the argument, the writer should show a direct correlation between the automobile accidents and a lack of driver's education among Centerville High School students. Without such evidence, the argument is groundless..