Analyzing Arguments for Mobile Phone Use While Driving Penalty

This question asks us to evaluate the strength of two arguments related to a statement about imposing strict penalties for using mobile phones while driving. We need to determine which arguments provide strong support or opposition to the statement.

Understanding the Statement and Arguments

The statement is: There should be strict penalty for people using mobile phone while driving.

Let's look at the arguments presented:

• Argument I: Yes, it will ensure that the number of accident due to mobile phone usage gets avoided.
• Argument II: No, it is difficult to implement as people are used to using cell phones anywhere.

Evaluating Argument I: Reducing Accidents

Argument I claims that strict penalties will lead to avoiding accidents caused by mobile phone usage while driving. This argument focuses on the direct positive outcome of the proposed policy. Strict penalties are generally intended to deter specific behaviors. Using a mobile phone while driving is a major distraction and a significant cause of road accidents. Therefore, a strict penalty would likely discourage this behavior, leading to a reduction in accidents caused by it.

This argument presents a clear and logical consequence of the statement's proposal, directly addressing the public safety aspect. Reducing accidents is a primary goal of traffic regulations. Hence, this argument is strong because it supports the statement based on a desirable and probable outcome related to safety.

Evaluating Argument II: Difficulty of Implementation

Argument II opposes the statement by saying it is difficult to implement because people are used to using cell phones anywhere. This argument points out a practical challenge in enforcing the policy. While it is true that changing public behavior can be difficult and enforcing laws everywhere is challenging, the difficulty of implementation does not necessarily make the argument against the policy strong.

A policy's strength should be judged based on its intended purpose and potential benefits, not solely on the ease of implementation. Many important laws are difficult to enforce, but their value justifies the effort. This argument highlights a practical hurdle but does not weaken the reasoning behind why strict penalties are desirable from a safety perspective. Therefore, this argument is weak as it focuses on feasibility rather than the principle or outcome of the policy itself.

Conclusion on Argument Strength

Based on the analysis:

• Argument I is strong because it highlights a significant positive consequence (accident reduction) directly linked to the statement's proposal.
• Argument II is weak because it focuses on implementation difficulty, which is a practical challenge but doesn't negate the potential benefit or the need for the policy.

Therefore, only Argument I is strong.

Final Answer

Considering the evaluation of both arguments, only Argument I is strong with respect to the statement.

Revision Table: Mobile Phone Driving Penalty Arguments

Additional Information: Statements and Arguments in Reasoning

In logical reasoning, analyzing statements and arguments involves assessing whether the arguments strongly support or oppose the given statement. A strong argument is relevant to the statement and provides a compelling reason to accept or reject it based on facts, principles, or likely consequences. A weak argument may be irrelevant, based on faulty logic, or focus on minor points or difficulties that do not undermine the core assertion of the statement.

When evaluating arguments, consider the following:

• Relevance: Does the argument directly relate to the statement?
• Strength: Does the argument provide a convincing reason for or against the statement? Is it based on sound logic or evidence?
• Assumption: What underlying assumptions does the argument make?

Arguments about implementation difficulty are often considered weak if the policy's potential benefits are significant, as they address practicality rather than the fundamental merit of the proposal.