In the letter, the author argues
that an effective and mandatory program sponsored by the high school is the
only solution to the pressing issue. Although the argument may seem convincing
at first, the lack of answers leads me to conclude that the argument is flawed
in many aspects.
First, the author needs to answer
the question whether there is a casual relationship between the accidents and
the teenager drivers. It is plausible that the main cause of the accidents is
owing to those who are not teenagers, such as adults. Moreover, people not from
Centerville but other towns could have made the accidents in and around
Centerville. Without answering to these questions, it is too hasty to conclude
that it is necessary to mandate the program to reduce the accidents that
involves teenagers.
Next, the question needs to be
answered whether the mandatory program sponsored by the high school is
credible. In all likelihood, it is possible that some teenagers are already good
in the driving. However, if the school mandates the program, it would waste
time of students who are already excel in driving. Also, it will cost a
plethora of money to make the program mandatory. To implement the program, the
school needs to hire extra resources as well as arrange automobiles and driving
infrastructure. However, if the costs outweigh the benefits, the program would
not prove to be effective.
Lastly, it is necessary to answer
the question whether the mandatory program sponsored by the high school is the
only solution. It is plausible that parents or siblings can give students driving
instructions instead of running the program. It is also possible that
respondents who have answered they are too busy to teach their children to
drive are not representative of all parents of the school. Moreover, if the
program runs free of charge, the students may not take the course seriously and
waste their time doing other things during the course.
In summary, the author’s argument
is unconvincing on many grounds. Without answering to the aforementioned
questions about casual relationship between the accidents and teenager drivers,
driving level of all students, and other solutions, the argument is
far-fetched.