argument31 小鸡快跑

haorenza-1UID??2216363

"Some states are creating new laws that restrict the use of of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles. Such legislation, however, is sheer folly. Although some people with cell phones undoubtedly cause problems on the road, including serious accidents, the majority do not. Besides, problems are also caused by drivers who are distracted by any number of other activities, from listening to the radio to disciplining children. Since there is no need to pass legislation restricting these and other such activities, it follows that there is no need to restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient-or helpful in emergencies."

The conclusion of the speaker in this argument is that it is sheer to create new laws to restrict the use of handheld cell phones when driving. Although the argument seems logical at the first glance, it suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer fails to substantiate that the majority with cell phones on the roads do not cause accidents. No evidences offered to prove it. Lacking such evidence, it is possible that most car accidents happened because of using cell phones. Common sense tells us that telephoning when driving serves to distract the driver's attention greatly, and when emergencies on the road happens, drivers who are making a phone could not make reaction immediately. Therefore, the arguer's claim that "the majority do not" is unreliable.

Secondly, this argument fails to make a sound comparison between using cell phones and other actions such as listening to the radio or disciplining children. In this case, it is possible that accidents caused by these other behaviors are very few , especially(at least) much fewer than those caused by using cell phones. Therefore, these behaviors need not deserve restrict (laws) but not ,(rather than )using cell phones ,which is(might be) the main reason for car accidents. Additional, in the argument there is no evidence that other actions which can easily lead to serious car accidents are not restricted by laws, perhaps vast abound (amount) of these dangerous behaviors are not allowed by laws, not only using cell phones.

Finally, the arguer provides no evidence that drivers only use cell phones in emergencies. Perhaps, some drivers, especially the young ones use cell phones on the road only because they feel this action cool , just like actors in the films. Or perhaps, many drivers could make phones in office, but they phone when driving to save time, though knowing that it is easy to cause car accidents.

As it stands, this argument is not well reasoned. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should provide more evidences that majority with cell phones on the road do not cause accidents, and to better assess the argument, we would need to know other actions such listening to the radio cause accidents as well as making phones, and also fact that people only use phones in emergencies