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…
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
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…
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