Studies show that in 70 percent of traffic accidents, at least one driver involved is less than 10 miles from home when the accident occurs. This statistic indicates that drivers have a tendency to drive incautiously when they are close to home, probably because familiar surroundings give them a false sense of security. Thus, the places where people feel safest are the places where they are in fact at greatest risk of serious injury.

The arguer of the above argument wants to recommend that the places that people feel are safest are in fact places where people are at greatest risk of getting serious injury. There are various arguments presented by the arguer in support of his stand. The first argument in support of the arguer’s recommendation is the study which indicates that in 70 percent of traffic accidents at least one of the drivers is almost as near as 10 miles from his home. The other argument which arguer states to further make his argument strong is the statistic which shows that when the drivers enter familiar surroundings they get a false sense of security. This false sense of security makes them careless, thus causing accidents.

The first argument presented by the arguer is ambiguous in regard to the studies which show that one of the driver in 70 percent of the accidents is as near as 10 miles from home. The arguer has not mentioned the period when the studies were done. There is a possibility that the studies are about a certain area which was quite accident prone. The arguer has not mentioned the place and may be the law and order of the place was not strict enough to control traffic rules. The arguer has also not mentioned the age of drivers as very young and very old drivers are more prone to accidents. It is also quite possible that in the area where the studies were conducted maximum offices or the work places were in the radius of 10 miles. In absence of the relevent facts it is very difficult to understand and accept the arguments made by the arguer.

The arguer in his second argument states negligence on the part of drivers as he reaches his familiar surrounding because it gives the feeling of security. This argument is absolutely baseless. The arguer has mentioned about the statistics which indicate this observation but the arguer has not mentioned the exact number or percentage of drivers who felt so. This is an assumption and exact figures are not given.

The assumptions made by the arguer are very misleading. The arguer has not mentioned that the studies conducted were of a particular place which was more accident prone due to the various reasons like merging traffic, blind turns, hilly area or bad roads. In addition the arguer has stated that the driver who is close to his home is more reckless than the driver who is far from his home. The arguer has also not mentioned whether all the accident victims inflicted with serious injuries were the ones who were closer to their homes or the ones who were far were also inflicted with serious injuries. Again in all the cases of accidents reported in the surveys whether the drivers who were near to their homes were the ones who caused accidents is not mentioned.

The arguer must present us with the more precise and acceptable facts. The studies and statistics should be more relevant and accurate to make the arguer’s stand stronger.