"Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway

between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The
favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an
additional lane of traffic. Opponents note that last year's addition of a lane to the
nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. Their
suggested alternative proposal is adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many
area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use
bicycles to commute, it is argued, thereby reducing rush-hour traffic."
In the editorial of local newspaper, it is stated that the opponents of the motorists lobby plan to add
another lane of Blue Highway have advocated that a bicycle lane be constructed in order to alleviate the
highway’s traffic issues. The opponent have come to this conclusion based on the issues faced by Green
Highway last year as well as the keen interest in bicycling of the areas local residents. Before this
recommendation can be properly evaluated, however, these three question must be answered.
First of all, are Green Highway and Blue Highway roughly comparable? In other words, can
circumstances from one highway be used to make generalizations and predictions about the other? It is
possible that the Green Highway and Blue Highway are not similar at all- perhaps Green Highway runs
through residential neighborhoods, where the Blue Highway is located mostly in rural, unpopulated
section of the city. Further, there is a possibility the quality of the highway is markedly different, with
Green Highway’s road falling apart and Blue Highway in pristine condition. If either of these scenarios
has merit, then condition drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, do a majority of a majority of the area resident in biking live within biking distance of their
place of employment? The opponents in the arguments prematurely assumes that many of the residents in
the will bike to work in the morning rather than drives their cars. However, this might not be the case.
Perhaps the average distance from home to work is over 15 miles, and that’s why many of the residents
are essentially obligated to take the highway – even if they don’t want to. In an ideal world, they might
choose to bike to work, but in reality is such that they cannot do so due to the logistics of their situations,
then only one form of transportation (the car via the highway) is possible. If the above is true, then the
argument does not hold true.
Finally, are the last year’s issues of exacerbated traffic condition faced by the Green Highway still
existing? The opponent unwarrantedly assumes that the last year’s issues of worsened traffic faced
by the Green Highway due to constructing motorist lobby to widening the highway still exist in the
way they were in the previous year. However, this might not be the case. There may be the possibility
that the previous year issues has been solved and the traffic issues of previous year no long exist in Green
Highway. Further, there is a possibility that stringent traffic laws to control jam in Green Highway might
have been implemented this year which has ameliorated the traffic problems. If the scenarios above is
true, then the argument made is by opponent is weakened.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several
unwarranted assumption. If the author is able to answer three questions above and offer more evidence
(perhaps in the form of a systematic research study), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability
of the proposed recommendation to add a bike take to Blue Highway.