In the letter, the writer recommends an initiation of a high-school-sponsored drivers' education
course program and predicts that such a program will help solve the teenage frying problem in
Centerville. While this program might be beneficial to some extent, the reasoning of this argument
is unconvincing due to several unsubstantiated assumptions which, if proven unwarranted, will
seriously challenge the author's recommendation.
First of all, writer's recommendation relies heavily on the assumption that the driving problem
involving teenage drivers in the town of Centerville is serious enough to require immediate
measures be taken. Based on such an assumption, the writer therefore proposes formal Direction
to ensure that these teenagers become safe driver. However, this assumption is potentially
problematic because we are not informed with the exact number of the accidents. Nor do we know
whether the teenage drivers are to blame for these accidents. In addition, we even have no idea
whether or not the teenage drivers are local. If it turns out that the accidents are not
sufficiently serious, or they could be attributed to factors other than the local teenage drivers'
negligence, then the author's argument for a proposed driver education program is unconvincing.
In addition, by stating that parents have either little time or funding to provide their teenagers
with driving courses, the writer rules out alternative methods which could rival the proposed
driving program. However, we need to re-examine the assumption that the driving program is the
only solution to the teenage driving problem. It is likely that the so-called busy parents just use
their unavailability as an excuse because they are reluctant to teach. It is of equal possibility
that parents with limited budget make up only a minority of parents. In addition, government-
sponsored driving courses could also serve as an alternative method. If any of these possibilities
is true, then we are inclined to believe that other solutions could overshadow the one proposed to
solve the driving problem.
Even if the assumptions mentioned above are valid, the writer's recommendation could be unnecessary
due to the doubtful assumption regarding the efficiency of the proposed driving program. Claiming
that this program will be effective, the writer might be too optimistic. It is unreasonable to
assume that all parents, including those who would like to teach their teenagers personally, will
readily accept such a school-sponsored mandatory driving Direction program. Also, the writer hastily
comes to the conclusion that the local high school should sponsor this program but does not discuss
whether the school is financially capable of doing so. Furthermore, we cannot be sure that there
will be fewer accidents involving local teenage drivers after the implementation of the proposed
recommendation. If this program provokes general discontent amongst parents or the school cannot
afford such a program, then the recommendation may not be enacted and we cannot therefore expect a
decrease in the number of driving accidents in Centerville.
To summarize, whether or not we should implement the writer's recommendation depends greatly on the
validity of the assumptions in the argument. If these assumptions prove unwarranted, then the
recommendation will be little more than the writer's wishful thinking, and accordingly we need to
consider other solutions to the teenage driving problem in Centerville.