Argument31 [同主题十六期]留帖互改，共度10G

bert2006UID: 2194175

TOPIC: ARGUMENT31 - The following appeared in the editorial section of a newsmagazine.

"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."
提纲：
1，大多数人没事是由于大多人安全意识高，避免在车上使用手机
2，打手机比其他活动，如听广播等，危险
3，新法只是限制手机使用，并没有规定司机不能带手机

The argument concludes that there is no need to create new laws that restrict the use of handheld cell phones by drivers of automobiles. However, the conclusion is doubtful for lack of convincing evidence and possible causes serious accidents by misleading drivers of automobiles.

First of all, the argument does not take account of the fact that people who carry cell phones do not necessarily use the cell phones when driving. The arguer assumes that drivers who carry cell phones with them will certainly use the phones in the cars without restriction. It is certainly not the case. Most people who are safety conscious usually avoid using cell phones when driving because they notice the potential danger of this action. It may, in fact, be their precaution that keeps the majority of drivers away from the accidents caused by cell phones. Similarly, laws that restrict the use of cell phones can force careless drivers to limit the use of cell phones and avoid serious accidents.

The argument fails to consider the differences between activities which can distract the drivers' attention. Activities, such as listening to the radio and disciplining children, are not prohibited by legislation possibly because they inherently have little effect on the drivers and less likely cause accidents. For example, most drivers usually do not pay much attention on the radio because they just want to listen to some music for relaxing and it does not matter what they are listening to or whether they can hear clearly. In contrast, when using cell phones, the drivers must listen carefully in order to understand what the caller say, especially when the ambience in the car is very noisy. Considering the serious danger of using cell phones, it is reasonable to restrict the use of cell phones by drivers of automobiles.

Finally, there is absolutely no evidence that the new law will deprive the convenience of using cell phones, especially in emergencies. It is possible that the new law allow people to carry cell phones on cars, but only prohibits drivers from using cell phones when they are driving. As a result, the safety of the drivers will be improved and the convenience of cell phones will also be retained.

In a word, the argument does not provide adequate evidence to prove that the legislation is unreasonable. To strengthen the argument, more convincing evidences are needed.