Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.
The argument gives statistics of increases in automobile accidents since the speed limit increased six months ago on the highways of Forestville. The argument also gives a statement of how the neighboring region of Forestville, did not increase or decrease the speed limit. It remained unchanged and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. The argument may appeal to those who have been effected by the increase in accidents, but it does not give an emotional appeal overall. We are relying on the authors statistics but we don't know where they came from and if they are reliable. The argument needs more examples and illustrations to get his point across to more people. It is suggested that the citizens of Forestville campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase, but it is usually hard to start a campaign. One person needs to take action. If the author is a citizen of Forestville, maybe he should take the initiative. Comments:
This seriously flawed critique presents only one idea relevant to an analysis of the argument: "The argument needs more examples and illustrations to get his point across to more people." Everything else in the essay is either summarizing the argument, speculating, or offering advice. The result is a response that is clearly on topic but that provides no analysis of the line of reasoning in the argument.
In addition to the lack of analysis, the writing is weak. The organization is loose, although not illogical, and intended meaning is sometimes unclear (e.g., "but it does not give an emotional appeal overall."). For these reasons, the response deserves a score of 2 according to the scoring guide.