The best part of the editorial to provide evidence for your thesis that the writer is wrong to claim that red light cameras make intersections safer is pointing out that the study the writer cites as proof that red light cameras reduce the number of broadside crashes also reports they increase the number of rear-end collisions. This directly addresses the effectiveness of red light cameras by highlighting the unintended consequences of their implementation. It demonstrates that while the cameras may reduce certain types of accidents, they simultaneously increase others, undermining the overall claim that they make intersections safer. This evidence effectively counters the argument by showing that the presence of red light cameras can lead to a net increase in collisions, which disputes the assertion that they improve traffic safety.
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? 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 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 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
1 answer
0 answers