Question

Which line or lines in this editorial show faulty reasoning?
Save Teenage Driving: A Call to Arms
an editorial by Sophie Behrend

Recently, House Representative Ken Weaver of Washington State proposed a bill (House Bill R-9687b) that would raise the legal driving age to 21. You heard me right—Congress is considering raising the driving age to 21. If you are like me, such a law would be a catastrophe and would only mean one thing: the end of life as we know it.

Representative Weaver claims that his bill is motivated by "safety." He argues, “Nearly half of all accidents involve people under the age of 21." Representative Weaver also claims, "Raising the driving age would mean raising the level of safety on America's roads."

But I would ask Representative Weaver: Do not "nearly half" of all accidents involve men, and would not the streets be safer, then, if male drivers were outlawed? And what about the percentage of accidents that occur on paved roads—should we do away with paved roads too?

Weaver also claims that "a majority of seat belt violations" are the fault of the under-21 crowd. But let me ask you this: Do people under the age of 21 really wear their seat belts less often than older people, or are they just caught more often? That is, we know the police have their eye on the teenagers, but are they looking at the adults as well?

But I can hear it now: "If teenagers are all so safe, why do they have such high accident rates?" Here's a possible answer: inexperience. Like anybody who is inexperienced, the teenage driver must suffer through a legitimate period of self-doubt and skills acquisition. Chances are, if the driving age were moved to 21, we would see 21- to 24-year-olds causing the largest percentage of safety problems—not because of a maturity problem, mind you, but just because they would be inexperienced at driving.

Answer 1

The lines which show faulty reasoning are the following: And what about the percentage of accidents that occur on paved roads—should we do away with paved roads too?

This argument is faulty because it isn't logical. Paved roads are not the cause of accidents like the writer wanted to underline with the previous example about men drivers, so there is no point in "doing away with them". Also, the rhetoric question "should we do away with paved roads too?" reveals faulty reasoning because it is an extreme point made by the writer in order to emphasize his/her point but it's something which is not possible.  

Answer 2

Answer:

“Nearly half of all accidents involve people under the age of 21." Representative Weaver also claims, "Raising the driving age would mean raising the level of safety on America's roads."

Explanation:

Faulty reasoning happens when the end that is come to isn't bolstered by the information gave. It can result in overgeneralization, predisposition or unreasonable ends. In this extract, Representative Weaver is utilizing broken thinking. In light of his information, he has achieved the end that raising the lawful age would result in more secure streets. Nonetheless, the creator of the article has demonstrated this isn't really valid, as there are numerous different elements that may influence the information in regards to accidents.