The reasoning presented in support of doubling speeding fines is based on the premise that higher fines correlate with reduced speeding; however, it overlooks the potential unintended consequences of such an increase. For instance, doubling fines may disproportionately affect low-income individuals who might struggle to pay even the higher amount, potentially leading to financial hardship or further legal issues. Additionally, there is no discussion of alternative methods to improve road safety, such as increased enforcement or education campaigns. Thus, while the claim is grounded in some studies, the argument lacks consideration for the broader implications, making it less sound.
Our town should double its fines for speeding. Studies show that higher fines result in less speeding, so increasing the fees should improve safety. There is no reason not to do this. If people can afford to pay a $50 fine, then surely they should be able to pay a $100 fine as well.
How sound is the reasoning given to support the claim “Our town should double its fines for speeding”? Explain your response in 3 to 5 sentences.
(4 points)
1 answer