"Anyone would
think motorists were a minority"
"The driving lobby talks about denial of
their human rights as if they're Martin Luther King"
Mark Steel: The Independent (14/2/07)
Read the article: http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/mark_steel/article2268068.ece
What is the flaw in the first paragraph of the article?
Evaluate the usefulness of the comparison between the motorists’ campaign and Martin Luther King.
To what extent is the author attempting to knock down a “straw man” in the third paragraph?
What other examples of the “straw man” flaw are present in this argument?
What examples of the “slippery slope” flaw are present in this argument?
What is the impact of the survey in Vroom Vroom magazine? (fourth paragraph)
To what extent is the case of the motorists damaged by Steel’s revelation that it is being championed by a member of the Association of British Drivers?
Is there any way that teaching children about climate change could be interpreted as “state sponsored totalitarianism in education”?
To what extent does the author disagree with the Daily Mail? Evaluate the strength of the competing arguments.
How does the author illustrate the unreliable and expensive nature of public transport? What relevance does this have to his argument?
To what extent do “the people who block the roads with their hideous vast jeep things” demonstrate that some people are “addicted”?
Evaluate the strength of the author’s
article. In doing so, you should consider:
(i) Has the author successfully reasoned his way to a conclusion?
(ii) What reasons and evidence has the author offered?
(iii) What counter-arguments has the author responded to?
1. What is the flaw in the first paragraph of the article?
There is an example of the ad hominem flaw. The author ridicules the driving lobby for being lazy but he doesn’t explain how this discredits their argument, nor does he explain why an online petition is a less legitimate form of protest than a march.
2. Evaluate the usefulness of the comparison between the motorists’ campaign and Martin Luther King.
The only person making a comparison between the driving lobby and the American civil rights movement is the author. It is unlikely that the driving lobby would dare to make such a comparison. The author is not justified in suggesting that the driving lobby would have been against the Alabama bus boycott because of their opposition to public transport! Just because the driving lobby’s campaign may not be as historically or morally important as that of Martin Luther King, it does not necessarily follow that the driving lobby do not have a convincing argument.
3. To what extent is the author attempting to knock down a “straw man” in the third paragraph?
The author is suggesting that the driving lobby
are in favour of driving while using mobile phones, driving on the pavement and
driving blindly at mothers and toddlers and that they regard any restriction on
such freedoms as a violation of human rights. Clearly, the driving lobby do not
believe this.
4. What other examples of the “straw man” flaw are present in this argument?
Paragraph 2: “…the driving lobby talks about denial of their human rights as if they're Martin Luther bloody King.”
Paragraph 4: Drivers are suggesting that they can steer with their buttocks while completing 18 holes of golf while driving.
Paragraph 7: It's as if their attitude is "Why should we be denied our basic human rights, just because these 'Earthlings' would be a bit worse off if the planet dissolved?"
5. What examples of the “slippery slope” flaw are present in this argument?
Paragraph 6: Soon they'll say "These so-called scientists claim cars add to global warming. But it’s the sea levels that are rising, not the roads. So surely the safest thing to do is concrete over the seas and turn them into huge motorways."
Final Paragraph: Then in a few years they'll occasionally wet themselves on the settee and say, "Well I had no way of getting to the toilet as the clutch was busted."
6. What is the impact of the survey in Vroom Vroom magazine? (fourth paragraph)
The author has clearly made this up for comedy value but the fact that he has invented a survey, instead of exploring what the driving lobby is really saying, could be said to weaken his argument. As in the previous paragraph, the author is using a straw man.
7. To what extent is the case of the motorists damaged by Steel’s revelation that it is being championed by a member of the Association of British Drivers?
Steel is attempting to establish that the man who started the current campaign is not “a plucky lone rebel”. If it is true that he has, for some time, been a member of a pressure group that campaigns on these issues, it would follow that has had a previous interest in this area but it does not necessarily follow that he is not either plucky or a rebel. It may be that the Association of British Drivers is not involved in the current campaign.
Nevertheless, Steel has pointed out that the Association of British Drivers is also opposed to teaching children about climate change. In making this observation, the author is hoping to discredit the members of that organisation, including the man leading the current campaign. Of course, just because he may be wrong on one issue, it does not automatically follow that he is wrong on others.
8. Is there any way that teaching children about climate change could be interpreted as “state sponsored totalitarianism in education”?
It is true that a minority of scientists dispute the official view that greenhouse gasses have contributed to global warming and that reducing emissions and recycling could slow it down (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml). It is also true that, when children in school are taught about climate change, few teachers will mention the opinions of dissenting scientists. However, a teacher who wanted to do so would not be prohibited from doing so and it is the case that scientists who hold that greenhouse gas emissions do not contribute to climate change are in a small minority.
9. To what extent does the author disagree with the Daily Mail? Evaluate the strength of the competing arguments.
The Daily Mail believes that road pricing will hurt the poor, since they will be the least able to afford the tolls. The author appears to agree with them. However, there is an implication that The Daily Mail are against all road tolls, whereas the author is suggesting that he would be in favour of road tolls that are more expensive for people driving more expensive cars, rather like income tax which is paid at a higher rate by people with higher incomes.
Nevertheless, the author is not necessarily justified in arguing that the reason for charging tolls at a flat rate is the risk of driving the wealthy abroad. Indeed, it would be difficult to see how a means-tested road tolls policy could operate, in practice. It is not easy to quickly work out the value of a car, since that would depend on a combination of factors such as the make, model, age and condition of the vehicle.
10. How does the author illustrate the unreliable and expensive nature of public transport? What relevance does this have to his argument?
The author uses hyperbole (exaggerating for effect) but his point is that public transport in the UK is simply expensive and unreliable and that more people might use it, if it were cheaper and more convenient. This is relevant to his argument because it might explain why so many people are opposed to road pricing.
11. To what extent do “the people who block the roads with their hideous vast jeep things” demonstrate that some people are “addicted”?
The author clearly dislikes 4x4/SUV type vehicles but he does not really explain why. It is difficult to see how such drivers are “blocking the roads” more than any other vehicle. The roads are blocked because of the volume of traffic, rather than because of people’s choice of vehicle.
However, it may be that the author dislikes this type of vehicle because they are perceived as status symbols. If some people buy cars as status symbols, rather than as the most efficient and environmentally friendly form of transport, it would appear that they would be resistant to giving up these vehicles.
12.
Evaluate the strength of the author’s article. In doing so, you should
consider:
(i) Has the author successfully reasoned his way to a conclusion?
(ii) What reasons and evidence has the author offered?
(iii) What counter-arguments has the author responded to?
This is not a particularly coherent argument and the author has not successfully reasoned his way to a single conclusion. However, there is some argumentation going on in this article.
An intermediate conclusion could be in the title of the article: “The driving lobby talks about denial of their human rights as if they’re Martin Luther King” and there are some reasons offered in support of the author’s view that motorists are not a persecuted minority but these are generally implied through the author’s comedic style. For example, he ridicules the idea that the driving lobby has the moral authority of the American civil rights movement. He implies that restricting mobile phone use while driving is not a denial of human rights because of the dangers to others in inattentive driving. He makes the point that teaching children about climate change cannot be regarded as educational “totalitarianism”. He also suggests that the driving lobby is lazy and that this is illustrated by their use of an online petition, instead of a brave and active protest such as the Alabama bus boycott, which could imply that they are not suffering a serious violation of human rights.
In the second half of the article, the author considers some counter-arguments. He dismisses the view of the Daily Mail that road pricing is unreasonable because it hits the poor. He also dismisses the view that the unreliability and expense of public transport is the real reason why some motorists are so keen to retain their vehicles. He uses the evidence of 4x4 drivers to support his conclusion that some drivers are “addicted”.
The main conclusion of this argument (implied) is that road pricing is a good idea. The main reasons are all responses to counter assertions:
The driving lobby are not a persecuted minority (intermediate conclusion).
Road pricing need not unfairly hit the poor (because it could be means tested).
The unreliability and extortionate cost of public transport is not the main reason why some people will not give up their vehicles.
The author’s argument is not very successful because, while he has amusingly responded to counter assertions, he has not offered constructive reasons of his own in favour of the need for road pricing. Had he intended to write a more sober article, he might, for example, have explored the environmental impact of carbon emissions. Furthermore, he has not addressed the real arguments of the driving lobby, relying instead on ridicule for comic effect.