GRE Argument Essay 160
The following appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry.
“The Longhaul trucking company was concerned that its annual accident rate (the number of accidents per mile driven) was too high. It granted a significant pay increase to its drivers and increased its training standards. It also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive. The following year, its trucks were involved in half the number of accidents as before the changes were implemented. A survey of other trucking companies found that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident. Therefore, trucking companies wishing to reduce their accident rate can do so simply by raising their drivers’ pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive.”
The above article appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry. The arguer through the article wants to recommend that in order to reduce the accident rate the trucking companies should increase the pay of their drivers and also limit the overall driving hours. The arguer presents the example of Longhaul trucking company whose accident rate was very high and then the company thought of putting a strict limit on the number of driving hours for the drivers. The accident rate reduced to half without the implementation of the scheme of reducing driving hours. The arguer further supports his argument by giving example of a survey of other trucking companies which found that highest paid drivers were least likely to do an accident. Thus, the arguer is of the view that in order to reduce the accident rate drivers must be paid a higher salary and at the same time working hours should be reduced.
The arguments presented by the arguer are not at all convincing. The arguer has reached to the conclusion that because drivers were less paid and they were working more hours per week they were causing more accidents. The arguer has not mentioned whether the drivers were paid very less salary. The arguer has also not mentioned about the working hours of the drivers and whether the drivers were driving overtime. It is merely an assumption on the arguer’s front that working hours were the cause of accidents. There is no single example mentioned by the arguer in the argument which would indicate that the accident happened because of less salary or long working hours of drivers.
The arguer has not mentioned the condition of the trucks of the Longhaul trucking company. It is quite possible that the trucks were very old and thus were unable to perform nicely on roads. The arguer also fails to mention the various routes that the trucks were taking. It is possible that the road had many pits and blind turns or the route was through a hilly terrain which was very risky and accident prone. The arguer also fails to mention the role of the other drivers in accidents.
The arguer mentions that without reducing the working hours of the drivers the accident rates reduced to half. This means that the cause of accidents was not the working hours but could have been bad roads or non-maintained trucks.
The arguer also mentions that the survey of the trucking companies found that highest paid drivers were less prone to accidents. This certainly does not mean that because the driver was paid more that’s why he was doing less accidents but it could have been that because he was not doing any accidents he was paid more.
The arguer is unable to prove any relation between the salary and driving hours of the drivers with the accident rates. Thus, it would not be wise to say that the drivers were causing accidents because they were paid less and they worked for more hours.