阅读时间 ~4 分钟
All students should be required to take the driver’s education course at Centerville High School. In the past two years, several accidents in and around Centerville have involved teenage drivers. Since a number of parents in Centerville have complained that they are too busy to teach their teenagers to drive, some other instruction is necessary to ensure that these teenagers are safe drivers. Although there are two driving schools in Centerville, parents on a tight budget cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. Therefore an effective and mandatory program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem.
Merely based on unfounded assumptions and suspicious evidence, the statement draws a conclusion that an initiation of a high-school-sponsored driver’s education course program will help solve the teenager driving problem in Centerville. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that several accidents have been associated with teenager drivers in the past two years. In addition, he indicates that the busy work of some parents necessitates some other instruction to train teenagers into qualified drivers. Furthermore, he suggests that some families’ being unable to afford for the expensive cost of driving school due to financial difficulties enables such program to be the only solution to this problem. At first glance, the arguer’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the argument. In my point of view, this argument suffers such logical flaws as follows.
First of all, the author’s recommendation relies heavily on the assumption that the driving problem involving teenager drivers in Centerville is serious enough to require some measures to be taken. Based on such an assumption, the author therefore proposes formal instruction to ensure that these teenagers are safe drivers. This assumption, however, is problematic because we are not informed with the exact number of the accidents. Nor do we know whether these teenager drivers are to blame for these accidents. Maybe these driving accidents are caused by automobile mechanical failures. In addition, we even have no idea whether or not these teenager drivers are local. If it turns out that the accidents are not extremely serious or they could be attributed to factors other than local teenager drivers’ negligence, then the author’s proposition for a driver education program is unconvincing.
Additionally, by stating that a number of parents have little time to provide their teenagers with driving courses, the arguer suggests that alternative method should be proposed to train these teenagers. Based on the assumption that all of teenagers of these busy parents are eager of learning driving, the arguer’s suggestion is somewhat problematic, because presumably not all of such teenagers long for driving courses and they may not regard attending the driving courses as a priority. It is also likely that the so-called busy parents just use their unavailability as an excuse to conceal the fact that they are reluctant to teach. Those truly busy parents, therefore, could make up only a small part of all parents. If any of these possibilities is true, then we are inclined to believe that some other instruction is actually unnecessary to train them.
Even if the aforementioned assumptions are valid and teenagers should take driving courses for the convenience of travel or for safety reasons, the writer’s recommendation, that high-school-sponsored drivers’ education program is the only solution due to the case that some have financial difficulties paying for instruction of driving schools, is questionable. The case that some have financial difficulties does not mean that Centerville High School needs to require all teenagers to take driving courses sponsored by itself. The high-school-sponsored drivers’ education program for every teenager would cost Centerville High School too much and even be inefficient. Such program is not the only solution to driving problem because the high school can work with driving schools to provide targeted courses exclusively for students with financial difficulties.
To sum up, the arguer fails to substantiate his claim that an effective and compulsory program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to the serious driving problem, because the evidences cited in the analysis do not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more information with regard to driving accidents involving teenagers to demonstrate that teenagers’ driving problem is serious. In addition, he would have to corroborate that a great number of parents actually have little time to train their teenagers and no better solution could be substituted for this mandatory education program. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.