GRE Argument Topic 125

NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Tasks 127 and 129 of this Website. However, if you read carefully you will notice that the task instructions are different. Hence, it is very important to read the topic as well as its instructions completely before you start to write your response.

Sample 1:

Teenage driving is a frequent topic of discussion with parents, other authorities and insurance companies. Teen drivers in small towns know that the local cops are more likely to stop them than other drivers. These drivers know that they or their parents pay higher insurance premiums than do other drivers. One can only assume that teen drivers pose higher risks or drive less prudently than other drivers. Compelling all students at Centerville High School to take a driver education course through the school may not be the only or best way to reduce the number of accidents in the surrounding area.

The assumption that teens cause all of the accidents in which they are involved may be false. Even though teens are involved in an accident, the fault may be the other drivers. Even if each accident involving a teen driver is the teen's fault, the reader should not assume that they are a large portion of total accidents. Accidents caused by teen drivers may not result in serious injuries or extensive damage to cars or other property. During the two-year period mentioned in the argument, considerable road construction in the Centerville vicinity may have caused hazardous conditions for all drivers, so more accidents by all drivers occurred. The weather during this time span may have caused more dangerous driving conditions leading to a larger number of accidents involving teens and other drivers.

The author of the letter assumes that a mandatory driving course sponsored by the local high school is the only way to ensure that all teens learn to drive safely. There is no evidence that a high school course is more effective than other driving instruction for creating safe drivers. Requiring all students to take the course may be problematic. Some students may not be able to fit it into already challenging schedules. Some may not be interested in learning to drive. Many states have taken steps beyond driver education to reduce the number of accidents caused by teens. Some restrict new drivers to operating a vehicle only during daylight hours for the first six months. Others prohibit the teen driver from carrying passengers other than adults with licenses. These steps may be more effective in creating safer drivers than a mandatory course in high school.

The content of the letter leads to the assumption that teens are the worst divers on the road and that inexperience is the reason. Factors besides age influence a driver's ability to be safe. Good hearing and eyesight along with rapid reaction time keep drivers and others safe on our streets. Since it is the elderly drivers who may have poor vision and/ or reaction time, they may be the cause of as many accidents as teens are. Today, it is just as likely that a driver is distracted rather than inexperienced. More drivers of every age are using cell phones while operating a motor vehicle.

The conclusion that a high school course is the best solution is based in part on the assumptions that too many parents have no time to teach their teens to drive and that many families cannot afford the cost of the private driving schools. It would be helpful if the school board were given concrete numbers to support these assumptions. The number may be small enough to be significant; dedicating funds for the driver education course could put other programs at the school in jeopardy.

Drivers at any age can have accidents. Although experience prevents more serious accidents, other factors contribute to safety on the roads for everyone. Parents might be advised to buy the safest cars possible for their teens. Cars today have rear cameras that let drivers know of any obstacle behind them when they are backing up. Air bags save lives every day. When all of the factors are considered, the school board may decide that a course at the high school is the best decision, but they also may determine that other options are just as viable for creating safe, young drivers.

Sample 2:

The letter to the school board in the town of Centerville expresses a grave concern about teenage drivers. Looking at the record of accidents in the past two years where teenage drivers have been involved, it says that there should be a compulsory driver’s education in the school. It further says that parents are too busy to take up this responsibility and this increases the need of the school to instruct the teenagers. Moreover, parents cannot afford to send their wards to driving schools and the only solution to the problem is to have compulsory and effective driver’s education in school. The argument presented in the letter sounds logical but, at a closer look, it has certain loopholes.

The letter does mention that most of the accidents involve teenage drivers but whether these teenage divers have been given driver’s education or not is not mentioned. This means that there are equal chances of their being trained in driving as that of their not being trained. Since the argument does not mention anything about the status of driver’s training of the teenagers involved in the accident, it can be said that the argument is blaming all teenagers without investigating into the matter. In such a case, there is no need of compulsory driver’s education since it has already been imparted.

In case of accidents, you cannot pinpoint the fault of any one person. It would be incorrect to blame the teenagers completely for the accidents. Since there are more than one person involved, the accident could have occurred because of either of the two. It is likely that the teenager involved is not to blame for the accident in most of the cases. The fact that most of the accidents involved teenagers could be just a coincidence. The argument in the letter simply puts two and two together to blame the teenagers in general for the accidents, which can be called unfair.

Driver’s education being a compulsory program in schools is a good idea but it is not completely feasible. If parents find it expensive, it is so for the school authorities as well. Teaching one or two teenagers is one thing and teaching the whole school is another. It involves a lot of money to introduce such a program where the fees for the instructors will have to be paid by the school besides arranging for the instruction to be carried out. The school will in turn levy the money from the students by increasing their monthly fees. This will again burden the parents who cannot afford to send their children to driving schools. In both the cases, it is the parents who will have to bear the charges of instructing their kids. Therefore, the suggestion made in the letter is not a solution of the problem because it does not look into the problems that will be created by the school’s running such a program.

Lastly, there is no guarantee of how successful such a program will be. If it will help in making teenagers more careful drivers and prevent accidents is something that one needs to wait and watch. Teenagers are aggressive and hyperactive by nature. It is possible that even after imparting such an education, they commit blunders in a rush and it leads to accidents. Hence, what is said in the letter can be negated completely and it calls for an alternate and better solution.