Exercise 6 B

By: Ayesha Aldoghan

The letter which has been written to prohibit parking in streets from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. has many fallacies that could weaken the reasons which have presented by the author to support his proposal.

First of all, the author states that parking overnight on a street is like having a garage on the street, so it is illegal because person use a street as a garage. The problem here is false analogy which compares two things shares certain aspects, and because of the specific sharing, a person assumes they are sharing other aspects as well. The author assumes that parking on a street overnight and parking on garage are alike because they have similarities such as people could park on them.

The second one is that the writer argues that generally there is no doubt that parking on the street over the night is undesirable, and bad, so it should be prohibited. The problem in this reason is begging the question. The author says that people don’t like to see cars are parking on the street on the night then he says it is bad to park on the street overnight. He doesn't support his reason with any premises or supporters to prove that parking in the street overnight is unpleasantly.

The third argument that the writer indicates is that the accidents between moving and parked vehicles will eliminate if parking is inhibited from 2 to 6 a.m. Therefore, all intelligent citizens will notice the decrease in accidents then it will be highly desirable. The problem here is that the author poisons the well. When the author says that all intelligent citizens will regard the elimination of the accidents, he makes discourages to open discussion of the issue. When he poisons the well, he leads to a personal disagreement instead of critical discussion.

The fourth argument that the writer argues is that the Chief of Police, Burgess Jones, made an experiment last month on the street Marquand Avenue. He put signs to prohibit parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. The result is that there is no one accident in that period of four hours while there are more than four hundreds accidents on the same street during the last year. The problem is the author use this experiment as a primes to support his reason, but the experiment examined only in one street, so it is too small and unrepresentative of all streets on the city.

The author should avoid these fallacies to make his proposal reasonable