Question

You are writing a response to a newspaper editorial urging your city to install a red light camera to reduce traffic accidents at a dangerous intersection.

Which part of the editorial would provide the best evidence for your thesis that the writer is wrong to claim that the cameras make intersections safer?


Using the writer’s statistics on the number of tickets issued by red light cameras at similar intersection to suggest the real motive is to raise money from fines


Countering the writer’s story about the number of accidents and near misses he has seen at the intersection with your observation that you haven’t seen many crashes there


Claiming that the writer’s stated job as a traffic officer is a conflict of interest


Pointing out that the study the writer cites as proof that red light cameras reduce the number of broad side crashes also reports they increase the number of rear end collisions

Answer 1

Pointing out that the study the writer cites also reports an increase in rear-end collisions.

That directly challenges the writer’s claim with the same evidence: it shows a trade‑off (fewer broadside crashes but more rear‑end collisions), so you can question whether intersections are actually safer overall. The other choices attack motive, rely on weak anecdote, or use ad hominem, none of which refute the safety claim as effectively.