Philosophical Methodology Exercises: #1 Logical Analysis of an Argument

Logical Analysis

P1: old people shouldn’t be allowed to drive

T1: neither should any dangerous driver, regardless of age

P3: bill would restrict all old drivers even one’s that are excellent drives

P4: It’s no more credible to say that elderly citizens are poor drivers than saying that all young people are good drivers

P5: avoid driving on high ways

P6: avoid driving during traffic

P7: just drive locally

P8: avoid driving under the influence of drugs and or alcohol

P9: not often given to distractions of loud music

P10: avoid talking on cellphones when driving

P12: avoid driving at night

P13: don’t go 85 mph

T2: Seniors are more cautious drivers

P11: The proposed requirments would impose rules for everyone regardless of ability. I’m reluctant to classify everybody in the same boat and restrict these folks

P14: Accidents involving seniors involve more serious injuries

P15: Seniors more prone to injury

T3: Not cause and effect but simply attributable to the effect that seniors are more prone to injury

T4: Threatening to remove or restrict driving privileges is very stressful to the elderly.

This argument contained a number of fallacies, and while I cannot identify the specific kind of fallacies committed in this argument I can show you where they can be found. The first thesis or conclusion is a perfectly sound point, yet it fails to address the question of whether or not all seniors should unconditionally be allowed to drive. The proposed new rules would only restrict driving privileges to those seniors who failed eye exams not to all seniors indiscriminately, which consequently and resolutely refutes the third premise. The fourth premise is a particular kind of fallacy the name of which I have on the tip of my tongue but can’t quite recall. This statement serves as a distraction from the real argument at hand, that being whether all seniors, including those with failing health, should be allowed to drive and instead seeks to divert the readers attention to the well-documented poor driving records of many youths. Premises five through 13 could all be refuted on the grounds of each statements unsoundness. They are all hasty generalizations (ha I finally remembered the name of a fallacy) in that they overgeneralize stereotypes and take them as facts. Despite the unsoundness of these premises, their conclusion in thesis two can be deemed valid in that if these premises were true they could logically lead to the statement that seniors are more cautious drivers. I believe this statement implies that seniors are better than young drivers or perhaps the author means they are better than all drivers. In any case the ambiguity of this phrasing can leave one wondering who seniors are really better than when it comes to driving. Premise eleven is absolutely ludicrous. What’s the matter with grouping everyone together and giving them all an equal opportunity to prove their driving merit. While premises fourteen and fifteen are both sound the conclusion is not valid as it fails to address other attributes of seniors that might contribute to the fact that seniors suffer more serious injuries when involved in accidents. The last statement may be true but it doesn’t hold well in an argument as seniors’ stress is an insufficient condition to avoid testing their eye sight to secure that only healthy seeing seniors are on the roads.