The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a local newspaper:
“It makes no sense that in most places 15-year-olds are not eligible for their driver’s license while people who are far older can retain all of their driving privileges by simply renewing their license. If older drivers can get these renewals, often without having to pass another driving test, then 15-year-olds should be eligible to get a license. Fifteen-year- olds typically have much better eyesight, especially at night; much better hand-eye coordination; and much quicker reflexes. They are also less likely to feel confused by unexpected developments or disoriented in unfamiliar surroundings, and they recover from injuries more quickly.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The author is suggesting that those 15 years old should still be allowed to drive. He feels that because 15-year-olds have the maturity to handle the responsibility, they should be allowed to drive. However, this is a faulty argument, because 15-year-olds are not mature enough to handle the responsibility, especially at night. It is true that 15-year-olds mature faster than 18-year-olds, but they still lack the maturity to handle a car. 15-year-olds do not have the experience or skill to drive safely, and this makes them poor candidates for driving. While 15-year-olds may be relatively good drivers during the day, they are terrible drivers at night. By assuming that 15-year-olds are mature enough to function behind the wheel of a car, the author may be overlooking the problems that 15-year-olds face. With the lights off, 15-year-olds are even more susceptible to road rage, malicious collisions, and other accidents, primarily because their reaction times are much slower in the dark. The lights of other cars and pedestrians also become a significant distraction, and 15-year-olds may not be able to focus on the road as well as adults. The author did not cite any statistics or studies to support his claim that 15-year-olds have better reflexes, but I cannot imagine it is true. The truth is that 15-year-olds are simply not physically ready for the responsibilities of driving a car. The author’s suggestion that 15-year-olds recover from injuries more quickly is also suspect, since 15-year-olds are more likely to sustain injuries in car accidents than adults. 15-year-olds are much more vulnerable to injuries caused by accidents because they lack the physical strength to avoid collisions or withstand the impact of the car. Moreover, because 15-year-olds are not yet considered adults, their parents may be reluctant to take them to the doctor for injuries, so 15-year-olds are more likely to have injuries that go undiagnosed and untreated. The author’s conclusion, however, does seem to hold some merit. If 15-year-olds can drive during the day, then they should be allowed to continue driving at night as well, at least until they are 18. This solution would require the state to monitor 15-year-olds’ driving records more closely and impose stiffer penalties on 15-year-olds who drive unsafely. 15-year-olds would also need to be required to take driver’s education classes, just as 18-year-olds now do. These classes would not only teach 15-year-olds to drive, but also teach them how to avoid accidents, how to react to emergencies, and how to react responsibly in potentially dangerous situations. The author may have inadvertently cited several reasons for allowing 15-year-olds to drive, but his argument is ultimately flawed.