Fallacious Arguments in The Letter to The editor by Hussain

In a letter to the editor, Robert R. Raywift writes a suggestion to avoid accidents in Mooburg city and he recommend that parking at streets overnight should be prohibited in order to reduce accidents rate. However, when we look at his argument at the first glance,he relies on tenable assumptions to build his argument. After deeply reading, we found that Raywift’s assumptions have several fallacies.   

First of all, Raywift mentions that when people park their cars in the street overnight, that means people making the street as their garages and he concludes that is not legal and should be forbidden. Raywift beg the question because he did not provide any evidence bolstering his opinion. He is wrong because he assumes that anyone parks his car overnight in the street that is mean he would make the street his garage. Raywift’s argument is weak and he will not convince people to agree with him without reasonable premises.

Raywift draws another weak assumption when he relies on the experiment which was done by the Chief of Police. During the time 2 am to 6 am, the chief sat a sign to prevent parking at one of the busiest streets in the city. At that time, there was no accident at that street, so Raywift assumes this would be successful way to avoid accidents at early morning. Nevertheless, the author explanation for this experiment was feeble due the fact that no accidents happened at this time do not confirm that ban signs was the real cause for preventing accidents, so the cause was mistaken. In this case, the author links everything do not occur at this time to the signs of banning car parking.

Furthermore, at the same point, Raywifts made a hasty generalization. He generalized the idea and assumed that what is true for this street would be true for all streets in the city. Therefore, when parking cars overnight be banned, the accidents would be eliminated. This experiment is inadequate in light of the fact that it conducted only one day and on one street.

The final fallacy in Raywift’s argument is personal attack. He could not answer his opponents logically when they said our streets are safe and we do not need more safety procedures. He started to arguing with them about their knowledge about safety in order to strengthen his opinion rather than explain for them his reasons to have more safety procedures.

It is clearly that Raywift argument is neither sounds nor persuasive. Therefore, it could not be approved in the city unless he provides sufficient evidence and explanation for his opinion.