The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper.

“Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant.”

The above article appeared as a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper. The arguer wants to state that the former mayor Durant should make an apology to the city of Atticus. The arguer gives various reasons to support that the mayor was at fault and he should apologize. The first argument presented by the arguer is that both the problems of damaged bridge and traffic are caused by Durant because the bridge was sanctioned by him 20 years ago. The second argument presented by the arguer is that Durant should have sanctioned a wider and a better designed bridge as it would have been possible in the same amount of public money and also there would have been no damage. Finally, the arguer states that the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. The arguer further mentions that although winters have been severe but that is no excuse for negligence and wastefulness of Durant.

The first argument presented by the arguer in support of his stand is that the cause of both the problems of damaged bridge and traffic is previous mayor Durant. The arguer has not mentioned any reported problems of people immediately after the construction of the bridge. It is possible that the bridge was made taking into consideration the requirements of that period. It is possible that at that time this bridge was made best suited for all the purposes. The arguer has also not mentioned about the traffic of that time as it might not have been as it is now.

The second argument presented by the arguer is that the mayor should have sanctioned a better and a wider bridge as it was possible in the same amount of money. It is possible that when the bridge was made it was not possible to make a wider bridge or there were not enough facilities for it. There is also a possibility that at that time it was wide enough but now the demand is of a much wider bridge. The arguer states that the same amount of money would have been sufficient to make a wider bridge. It is possible that in those days infrastructure was expensive and that’s why a wider bridge was not made and even if it was not expensive it was sufficient for people and the balance money was used for some other public utilities.

Finally, the arguer compares the condition of the bridge with the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. The arguer fails to mention how often that bridge is used by public. It is also possible that it is at a deserted place and people do not use it. The arguer also mentions that winters have been severe in the past many years. That is not the only reason but it does play a role in deteriorating the condition of the bridge.

Therefore, the arguer fails to prove that damaged bridge and traffic were entirely Mayor Durant’s fault. The suggestion by the arguer should not be accepted.