Argument Analysis On Penni-Anne Craft's Dq 3 Topic Regarding Bicycle Bells
I will be doing my argument analysis on Penni-Anne Craft’s DQ 3 topic regarding bicycle bells.
I What’s the point?
A. The argument is addressing the issue of D.C. revoking a law requiring cyclist to have bells on their bikes which many see as dangerous.
B. The conclusion was that the District’s Bicycle Advisory Council needed to justify their choices or to create more laws to protect cyclists.
II What are the reasons? What is the evidence?
A.
P1: Not having a law to enforce bells on bicycles in D.C. is reckless.
P2: There are to many potential scenarios where not having a bell could pose a risk to people.
P3: People could potential put themselves in harm’s way, so a verbal warning may not be effective when giving pedestrians a heads …show more content…
up to their presence.
P4: The issue is becoming worse with more dangerous bikes (like electric bikes for example) increasingly frequenting the streets with pedestrians.
B. An implied premise could be that the District’s Bicycle Advisory Council doesn’t have the well being of cyclist and pedestrians alike in mind.
C. The connection between the premises is that they are in favor of having bells on all the bikes of D.C. for safety purposes. A sub argument could be that they argue only bells are an effective safety measure for bikes to make themselves known and that there are no alternatives to this.
III Look at the Language
A. District’s Bicycle Advisory Council – A D.C. committee that meets to discuss, amend, and create laws to ensure the safety of D.C. cyclists and pedestrians in relation to cyclists.
B. The argument used basic language that most people could comprehend and didn’t really utilize any manner of speech that could have been perceived as imprecise.
C. The argument used a lot of linguistic manipulation to influence the emotions of the audience to make them be fearful of the potential harm that could come when cyclist don’t have bells on their bikes.
IV Assess the reasoning/evidence
A. This is not a deductive argument.
B. This is an inductive argument.
1. The argument does provide probable support from the premises for the conclusion.
2. Each premises relates to the conclusion and supports it with probable reasoning.
3. There are no fallacies present in the argument.
4. The argument mostly provides opinions and probable support so it overall lacks sufficiency.
V How could the argument be strengthened?
A. The argument could have been made stronger by including examples/ cases where accidents occurred when bells were not placed on bikes.
B.
People could say there is no difference if a cyclist has a bell or not because of the possibility they might not use it for whatever reason. Cyclist might not use a bell because they don’t have the time to ring it in the event of impending danger or they choose to use their voice because it is faster.
VI How could the argument be weakened?
A. The counter argument (which did not have much evidence to support it in the argument) was for cyclist to use their voice to make their presence known to their surroundings and I think this would be something most people would consider. People must think of the chances they would use a bell opposed to their voice for whatever reason. I think one’s voice would be louder than a bell and with all the surrounding noise a bell might not be heard. It should also be taken into consideration, in the event of an oncoming collision will a person think and have the time to use their bell opposed to screaming out.
B. The argument should take opposing opinions into consideration when they are trying to defend their position. A few opposing ideas are placed in the argument but no evidence was added along with them so that might make it harder to convince people.
VII Would you accept or reject the
argument?
A. I would accept this argument with a grade of C because I believe it made a lot of good points, but I would have liked to have seen more evidence/ facts to support the conclusion and persuade me to believe this argument is correct.
B. I choose suspended judgment because there weren’t a lot of facts to help me make an informed decision. I would need to see more evidence to persuade me that this argument is correct.
I What’s the point?
A. The argument is addressing the issue of D.C. revoking a law requiring cyclist to have bells on their bikes which many see as dangerous.
B. The conclusion was that the District’s Bicycle Advisory Council needed to justify their choices or to create more laws to protect cyclists.
II What are the reasons? What is the evidence?
A.
P1: Not having a law to enforce bells on bicycles in D.C. is reckless.
P2: There are to many potential scenarios where not having a bell could pose a risk to people.
P3: People could potential put themselves in harm’s way, so a verbal warning may not be effective when giving pedestrians a heads …show more content…
up to their presence.
P4: The issue is becoming worse with more dangerous bikes (like electric bikes for example) increasingly frequenting the streets with pedestrians.
B. An implied premise could be that the District’s Bicycle Advisory Council doesn’t have the well being of cyclist and pedestrians alike in mind.
C. The connection between the premises is that they are in favor of having bells on all the bikes of D.C. for safety purposes. A sub argument could be that they argue only bells are an effective safety measure for bikes to make themselves known and that there are no alternatives to this.
III Look at the Language
A. District’s Bicycle Advisory Council – A D.C. committee that meets to discuss, amend, and create laws to ensure the safety of D.C. cyclists and pedestrians in relation to cyclists.
B. The argument used basic language that most people could comprehend and didn’t really utilize any manner of speech that could have been perceived as imprecise.
C. The argument used a lot of linguistic manipulation to influence the emotions of the audience to make them be fearful of the potential harm that could come when cyclist don’t have bells on their bikes.
IV Assess the reasoning/evidence
A. This is not a deductive argument.
B. This is an inductive argument.
1. The argument does provide probable support from the premises for the conclusion.
2. Each premises relates to the conclusion and supports it with probable reasoning.
3. There are no fallacies present in the argument.
4. The argument mostly provides opinions and probable support so it overall lacks sufficiency.
V How could the argument be strengthened?
A. The argument could have been made stronger by including examples/ cases where accidents occurred when bells were not placed on bikes.
B.
People could say there is no difference if a cyclist has a bell or not because of the possibility they might not use it for whatever reason. Cyclist might not use a bell because they don’t have the time to ring it in the event of impending danger or they choose to use their voice because it is faster.
VI How could the argument be weakened?
A. The counter argument (which did not have much evidence to support it in the argument) was for cyclist to use their voice to make their presence known to their surroundings and I think this would be something most people would consider. People must think of the chances they would use a bell opposed to their voice for whatever reason. I think one’s voice would be louder than a bell and with all the surrounding noise a bell might not be heard. It should also be taken into consideration, in the event of an oncoming collision will a person think and have the time to use their bell opposed to screaming out.
B. The argument should take opposing opinions into consideration when they are trying to defend their position. A few opposing ideas are placed in the argument but no evidence was added along with them so that might make it harder to convince people.
VII Would you accept or reject the
argument?
A. I would accept this argument with a grade of C because I believe it made a lot of good points, but I would have liked to have seen more evidence/ facts to support the conclusion and persuade me to believe this argument is correct.
B. I choose suspended judgment because there weren’t a lot of facts to help me make an informed decision. I would need to see more evidence to persuade me that this argument is correct.