argument31 请大家批评指正

leopard2009UID: 2596872

卡时间写得，还是写得很匆忙！

"Somestates are creating new laws that restrict the use of of handheld cell phonesby drivers of automobiles. Such legislation, however, is sheer folly. Althoughsome people with cell phones undoubtedly cause problems on the road, includingserious accidents, the majority do not. Besides, problems are also caused bydrivers who are distracted by any number of other activities, from listening tothe radio to disciplining children. Since there is no need to pass legislationrestricting these and other such activities, it follows that there is no needto restrict people's freedom to use a device that they find convenient-orhelpful in emergencies."


The argument suggests that there is no need to limit drivers of automobiles touse cell phones for the reason that only a few of drivers with cell phonescaused problems, and no legislation is passed to restrict other activities thatalso might distract drivers' attention. While it seems plausible at the firstglance, careful scrutiny of this arguer's claim reveals that it containsseveral questionable facets.

To begin with, we are not informed about the percentage of the accidents causedby drivers with cell phones. If the percentage is very high, such as 50% ofaccidents are caused by drivers with cell phones, the arguer's conclusion isnot convincing. Besides, there is no information provided about the seriousnessof accidents caused by drivers with cell phones. The arguer mentions that somepeople with cell phones caused serious accidents, why did not he provide moreinformation about them. It is very likely that some accidents caused by peoplewith cell phones are extremely severe, or even led to a chain of accidents.Without this kind of information, the arguer's conclusion is not substantiated.

Moreover, the arguer ignores the inherent differences between driving whilecalling and other activities such as listening to the radio. Our common sensetells us that listening to the radio seldom distracts drivers' attention somuch to cause accidents. In fact, the radio is able to provide the driversinformation about the traffics and weather conditions, which will make drivingsafer. In addition, even if the problems caused by the activities are similaras the ones caused by drivers with cell phones, there is no evidence providedthat they are not forbidden by legislation. It is entirely possible that thelegislation of these problems is undergoing, so the argument's conclusion aboutno need to restrict drivers' freedom to use cell phone is unreliable.

Finally, the arguer draws the conclusion on the assumption that drivers usetheir cell phones only when they are in emergencies. This is often not the case.It is very likely that drivers mainly use the cell phones to chat with theircolleagues, spouses or subordinates. It is also possible that they may usetheir phones to surf online, to watch sports live in the internet, since moderntechnology has made cell phones accessible to TV, movies, or video online,which obviously will drastically distract the drivers' attention, and may causeserious accidents.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, suffers from severalflaws discussed above.