The reasoning supporting the claim to double the fines for speeding is partially sound but has notable flaws. While it's true that higher fines can lead to reduced speeding, the argument assumes that all drivers will be equally deterred by the increased penalty, ignoring individual financial circumstances and the potential backlash from the community. Furthermore, it overlooks the possibility that doubling fines may lead to increased resentment or non-compliance among drivers, ultimately undermining the intended safety benefits. Therefore, while the intent to improve safety is valid, the reasoning lacks a comprehensive consideration of the potential consequences of such a policy change.
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.
k
3 answers
make it half of the size
The reasoning to double speeding fines is partially sound but has flaws. It assumes all drivers will be deterred by the increased penalty, ignoring diverse financial situations and potential community backlash. Doubling fines could also lead to resentment or non-compliance, undermining safety benefits. Thus, while improving safety is a valid goal, the reasoning lacks a full consideration of possible consequences.