"Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. But last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. A better alternative is to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, and so would reduce rush-hour traffic rather than fostering an increase."
The argument says that a bicycle lane would inspire people to use bicycles to commute, leading to reduced rush-hour traffic. The problem of proposing the above solution is enhanced traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center. There was a proposal to widen the highway, but similar action on nearby highway led to worsening traffic jams. To support the reasoning, the author states that many area residents are bicycle lovers; therefore, they would prefer bicycle lanes, action will reduce traffic on Blue Highway. However, stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of a leap of faith, flawed reasoning and ill-defined terminology. The argument manipulates the facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation.
Further, it fails to mention several key factors based on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing and has several flaws.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that the situations due to which the Blue Highway is affected are the same as the situation of the nearby Green Highway. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, it is quite possible that the city in which Green Highway present population increased exponentially after widening the highway. This incidence could be because of several reasons, such as any national or international event in that particular and festival was organized during that period. Due to such events, it is pretty obvious that the traffic would be much higher, which might be the case with nearby Green Highway. The argument presented by the author regarding this point is not convincing. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated why the Green Highway widening was followed by increased traffic jams and how the situations of both highways are comparable.
Secondly, the argument claims that many residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage people to use the bicycle to commute, leading to less rush-hour traffic. This is again a very weak and unsupported reasoning as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between increased traffic on Blue Highway and using a bicycle by people. Generally, people use bicycles to travel shorter distances while other vehicles such as cars and motor bikes travel longer distances. In the argument, nothing is given about the vehicles mostly run on Blue Highway. What are the ratios of people using this highway for commuting on bicycle, car, or bus? To illustrate, if most people use the Blue Highway for going to suburbs to city center or vise versa and distance between these two locations are too much to travel by bicycle, then there would be no result to have bicycle lane. As the people would not use the lane, leading any reduction in the traffic.
In fact, it is not clear how many people like bicycles in that area, how many people who use the bicycle and like the bicycle actually use that highway for commuting, and the most importance the distance between these two places. If the argument had provided evidence that regaridng the distance between these two places, people's vehicle preference and the percentage of people liking bicycles, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Without convincing answers to the above-mentioned questions, one is left wondering that the claim is more wishful than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the reasons mentioned above and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. Similarities between Blue Highway and nearby Green Highway is important to know. Why the proposed plan to nearby Green Highway failed, what are significant vehicle sources leading to traffic in Blue Highway, and the role of the bicycle in traffic to Blue Highway are important points to know before making any claim.
In order to assess the merits of certain situations or decisions, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case knowing about the distance between suburbs and city center are very crucial. This distance would predominantly affect the use of bicycles for these people. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
