Argument Essay: The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Balmer Island Gazette.

 The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Balmer Island Gazette.

"On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the number of mopeds rented by the island's moped rental companies from 50 per day to 25 per day during the summer season. By limiting the number of rentals, the town council will attain the 50 percent annual reduction in moped accidents that was achieved last year on the neighboring island of Seaville, when Seaville's town council enforced similar limits on moped rentals."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

The argument states that the number of mopeds rented during summer in Balmer Island should be reduced to half the current count to reduce the number of accidents in the Island and achieve a target of 50 percent annual reduction in moped accidents. This conclusion is made by the author by presenting an analogy between the moped accidents in Balmer Island and the same in Seavile Island. However the argument does not provide valid reasons and analogy to bolster it’s points and hence is not completely cogent and convincing to follow the suggestions by the author.

Firstly the two Islands under consideration may vary in multiple aspects like population, land area, kind of people and types of policies followed. Hence comparing the two does not give us valid grounds to support the author’s argument. The number of people in Balmer Island may be more than the number in Seavile and hence the policies followed by the government to check the moped accidents in Balmer island need to be different in their approach. Also, as stated above, the number of people, in Balmer Island, increase to 100,000 during summer months which implies that the new population might not be aware of the policy changes or the speed limits and rental details of the mopeds rented. Nothing similar is mentioned regarding the population increase in the Islands of Seavile, which implies that the population might not even change during the summer months and the present population renting the mopeds are well aware of the policies followed and might also be safe drivers, hence preventing accidents.

Secondly, the author presents statistical data regarding the percent of reduction in the mopeds rented. However the author neglects the fact that the number of mopeds rented in the Balmer Island and the island of Seaville are not the same. Therefore keeping the same percentage change in the new policy suggested by the author, might not help the Balmer island policies in the way as it would for the island of Seaville. This change might also affect the profit of the rental companies and in turn, affect the summer tourism revenue for the government in Balmer Island. The author, should, instead, consider the current mopeds being rented in the Island and then consider the percent deduction as per the rental policies and the profit and revenue kept under consideration. This would solve both purposes, of reducing the accidents as well as maintaining the revenue. The government can also come up with policies benefiting both, the pedestrians as well as the moped drivers. Therefore limiting the rentals as well as applying special policies for pedestrians would be more beneficial and might reduce the accidents by more than 50 percent. Also, the 50 percent reduction in the accident in mopeds was recorded last year in Seaville and there are no records mentioned for accident percentage in the current year. Therefore, there is no affirmation to the policy in the current year and this proves the author’s point to be noncohesive. The author should consider the current statistics for the same for a stronger point.

Therefore, the above points should have been considered by the author to make his argument cohesive and convincing. However, the argument is flawed and could be strengthened if the author considered the correct statistics and other factors mentioned above to bolster his argument. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.