final essay2

 

Cuihua Lin

Mr. Hayes

English100 [1:10-2:00]

3/4/13
Revise Essay 2

Word account: 1401                        

            Teens’ Driving

The car is the most common means of transportation in the United States, and there are lots of teenagers who are allowed to drive under than the age of 18. However, the current age limit to 16-18 year-old new drivers increases the percentage of cars’ collision because they are too young, and they lack experiences and knowledge about driving. In order to learn more about teenager driving, I have read three articles. From these three articles, the writers talk about the issue on teens’ distracted driving. Each of them has individual arguments to the teens’ distracted driving. In addition, the writers express their own unique claims.  Leonard Sax writes an article, “Teens Should Be Encouraged to Participate in Supervised Street Racing.” Sax provides powerful reasons and evidences to explain his points. However, the other two articles, “Federal Graduated Driver Licensing Would Reduce Teen Crashes” which was written by Lori Johnston, and “Distracted Driving”, a viewpoint which provided the reasons to explain their opinions. Reading those articles, I selected one article to show the most convincing view than other two. I believe that Leonard Sax’s argument is the most persuasive among the three because he has powerful reasons and evidences to explain his claims or opinions. However, the other two writers, “Distracted Driving” and Lori Johnston’s arguments make it less convincing than Leonard Sax’s because they seem to argue their own side on the issue and lack testimonies to prove their claim.

            Leonard Sax’s argument is the most effective because he uses evidences to prove his claim. To prove his argument is more convincing than the other two’s, Sax argues that the Race-Legal program which is pioneered by Bender, the San Diego State professor, is an effective way to reduce teens’ reckless driving and street racing because of this program which can reduce teenagers drive recklessly. Before Race-Legal program is established, many teens died from reckless driving because they do not accept formal training. After Bender had set this program that gave teens a safe place for training driving, deaths from the reckless driving or street racing were reduced. In this argument, Sax says, “The most effective way to prevent teenagers from participating in street racing is to let them race on designated race on designated racetracks, under adult supervision” (Sax). This statement not only shows evidences in his useful claims, but also it provides teens a safe place for driving, so I agree that Sax’s argument is the most effective. Because teens are too young to lack experience, and they do not have a designated place to drive training, they are usually reckless drivers when they drive on the road. They drive faster than standard speed even if they know it is dangerous. With Sax’s argument, he uses Bender’s idea to show evidence that teenagers should go to the designated place to drive racing.  According to Sax’s idea, most teens do not drive recklessly. Even though Sax’s argument does not stop teens’ reckless driving, it can reduce the number of teens’ driving recklessly if they go to the designated place to drive until they are familiar with driving. Therefore, I think Sax’s point is most persuasive because he bases his argument on Bender’s idea which serves useful to the issue.

            In order to show persuasive evidence in his opinion, Leonard Sax uses another point to prove why teens drive recklessly. Sax argues that education is not enough for teenagers’ safe driving. He points out that although the time spent on education is useful for teens, sometimes education may lead teens to go to the wrong ways. In one part of his column, he says that the government warns teenagers not to take drugs and it tells them how dangerous it is if they take drugs, but teenagers feel that drugs are good things while they are more likely to take it. Sax mentions in this case that he thinks education also doesn’t solve the problem of teenagers’ reckless driving because of teens are new drivers who feel driving will be a fun thing. He points out that, “Teenagers who drive down public roads at 90 mph know they are doing something dangerous. They’re doing it, in part, because of the danger. Telling them that it’s dangerous isn’t likely to get them to stop”(Sax). It is a good assumptionth th that will help to prove Sax’s claim. In his explanation that no matter how much their parents or other adult people teach them how dangerous it is if they drive recklessly, teens still bring the excited emotion to drive as faster as they can, and even they know it is dangerous. Sax’s relevant data to prove education is not useful for teens driving. However, I think his points are effective because they have explained why education is not useful for teens driving. Sax’s article gives us more evidences and explanation that makes his claims more persuasive than the other two’s.

 The other writers, “Distracted Driving” and Lori Johnston are less convincing because they are lacking proofs in their claims. In the article, “Distracted Driving” which argues that the higher percentage of the distraction of driving is caused by use of cell phones by drivers. The article mentions that, “teens rise of mobile text messaging, a great deal of research, press attention, and legislative debate have been devoted to the issue of distracted driving” (Distracted Driving). In this statement “Distracted Driving” writes that teens shouldn’t talk to cell phone when they are driving.  It indicated that “distracted Driving” only talks about its opinion with the claim, and it doesn’t have specific relevant data to support its claim. Another article, Lori Johnston argues when teenagers drive their cars, they should follow three stages of licensing, which are passenger limits, late-night driving limits, and cell phone ban. Most people would agree to their claims, but I disagree because their arguments lack testimonies to prove their claim. “The safe teen and novice driver uniform protection act is a vaccination to protect teens in a very high risk and very potentially fatal environment.” This case is from Johnston’s article. In Johnston’s statement that he only lists three stages requirements, and teens need to follow the stages while they are driving, but they do not prove that how useful it is if teens do the three stages. There is not enough relevant data in the Johnston’s article, so I think his article less effective than others’ articles.

Although “Distracted Driving” has some useful evidences, it fails to explain and provides evidences for his claim, which makes his article less effective than Leonard Sax’s column. Sax writes about the ways of teenagers’ distracted driving, for how to prevent teenagers’ reckless driving, and how education is not enough to help teens’ distracted driving. From Sax’s article, there is a person, called Robyn Solomon, points out that, “Parents need to be talking to their kids and explaining to them the risk.” This point is one of methods that can reduce teens’ distracted driving. Sax has many specific details to prove that how teenagers can reduce reckless driving. He shows the specific relevant data that supports why his article is more effective than others’. “Distracted Driving” uses useful evidence to prove its claim. I agree with points of “Distracted Driving”, which “Distractions that can impair driving ability come in three categories: manual, visual, and cognitive”(Distracted Driving). However, the points are only writes about the reason of teenagers’ distracted driving and owners’ opinion, but there is not evidence to support its opinion. Because of without specific evidences, I don’t think its claim can persuade people. If “Distracted Driving” had used more relevant data to prove his argument, it would have created a more effective way to prove its claim.

Overall among, three articles, Leonard Sax’s article is more effective than other two because he has specific reasons and evidences to provide his argument. I think if we want to decrease teens’ distracted driving in the future, teens should not use cell phone or text with others when they are driving; in addition, before teens start to drive, their parents should teach them the driving skills. If teens learn all of driving skills, they will decrease the crashes rate. I have been driven for one year. Even though I am a new driver, I never do the reckless driving because I pay attention to drive. Therefore, I think if teenagers pay attention to their driving, it will lower the crashes rate.

                                                             Work Cite

“Distracted Driving” opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2012. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 4 Feb. 2013

Johnston, Lori. "Federal Graduated Driver Licensing Would Reduce Teen Crashes.” Teen

        Driving. Ed. Michele  Siuda Jacques. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At issue.

        Rpt. from "Federal Driver's Licensing Bill Seeks to Put the Brakes on Teen Auto

        Accidents." 2011. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 6 Feb. 2013.

Sax, Leonard. "Teens Should Be Encouraged to Participate in Supervised Street Racing."

Cars in America. Ed. Andrea C. Nakaya. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Teens Will Speed. Let's Watch Them Do It." Washington Post 28 Nov.   2004: B8. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.