Weak or poor argument
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Yes it is true that 55 mph saves lives. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 4,500 lives have been saved by the 55 mph limit. But surely there are more cost-efficient ways of saving lives... such as equipping every house with a smoke detector ($50,000-$80,000 per life) or putting more dialysis machines in hospitals ($30,000 per life).
This argument was presented in a book I am working on and the authors dismissed it as a poor argument, citing irrelevancy.
They further made the point that " yes we could save lives by equipping every house with a smoke detector, but that has nothing to do with saving lives on the highway - which is what the argument is about here. Lowering speed limits doesn't interfere with installing smoke detectors."
I don't completely agree with their reasoning, and it could be countered in my opinion. Ill hold off on my thoughts until others have had a chance to chime in.
This argument was presented in a book I am working on and the authors dismissed it as a poor argument, citing irrelevancy.
They further made the point that " yes we could save lives by equipping every house with a smoke detector, but that has nothing to do with saving lives on the highway - which is what the argument is about here. Lowering speed limits doesn't interfere with installing smoke detectors."
I don't completely agree with their reasoning, and it could be countered in my opinion. Ill hold off on my thoughts until others have had a chance to chime in.
Answers
5The authors claimed later in the book that the issue was irrelevant to the argument, that lowering the speed limits saves lives.
Introducing the smoke detector angle changed the argument to what is the most economical way to save lives, which is a different argument.
Of course it wouldn't stop people from doing it and saying "that's irrelevant to the issue" won't stop them.
Introducing the smoke detector angle changed the argument to what is the most economical way to save lives, which is a different argument.
Of course it wouldn't stop people from doing it and saying "that's irrelevant to the issue" won't stop them.
I'll add one thing that has not been mentioned. There is an implicit false dichotomy here.
By saying, we could save lives by installing smoke detectors instead of a 55 mph speed limit, he is implying that its either one or the other. That we either save peopls lives by lowering teh speed limit or by installing smoke detectors.
This would be a reasonable dichotomy, if and only if the live being saved where teh same ones, or that the was some common resource that could only be spent on one.
You might logically make thsi argument in the case of say. choosong between 55 miles per hour and replacing the road with a mass transit system, because those are two alterntives that are mutually exclusive.
Now if he could someone demonstrate a forced choice between smoke detectors and 55 speed limits, and show that smoke detectors were more cost effective in saving lives, then he could make his arguments work.
By saying, we could save lives by installing smoke detectors instead of a 55 mph speed limit, he is implying that its either one or the other. That we either save peopls lives by lowering teh speed limit or by installing smoke detectors.
This would be a reasonable dichotomy, if and only if the live being saved where teh same ones, or that the was some common resource that could only be spent on one.
You might logically make thsi argument in the case of say. choosong between 55 miles per hour and replacing the road with a mass transit system, because those are two alterntives that are mutually exclusive.
Now if he could someone demonstrate a forced choice between smoke detectors and 55 speed limits, and show that smoke detectors were more cost effective in saving lives, then he could make his arguments work.
Well if lowering speed limits on highways saves lives and that's the goal then the speed limit should be lowered to 35mph. Of course that would be inconvenient because it would cause longer commutes. Putting smoke detectors in houses might warn people if there house is filled with smoke but that doesn't ensure that they have mapped out a proper escape routes. I say, lower the speed limits of mobile homes and put smoke detectors in cigarette manufacturing plants.sue transportation companies for designing and selling vehicles that travel at speeds that can cause death upon an accident happening.You never really get any logic when you discuss these types of issues. Its more or less what people feel is a inconvenience. Lol
It wasn't stated how lowering the limit would increase costs, presumably it would slow down commerce and impact the economy.
The implication was that there would be costs, and they would be higher than the two alternatives proposed, so lets assume for the sake of argument its 100,000 per life.
The implication was that there would be costs, and they would be higher than the two alternatives proposed, so lets assume for the sake of argument its 100,000 per life.
If you are arguing based on cost-benefit analysis, you haven't stated what the cost of the 55 mph limit is to the state and the economy. Given cars are more fuel efficient when driven slower, and drivers breaking the speed limit can be punished with fines, I don't see how lowering the speed limit imposes a financial burden anywhere. This probably makes your argument a logical fallacy I'm afraid to say, but I'm a newbie at this, so not quite sure which one!
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course