As the argument presents it, the writer’s standpoint is that lane widths should be increased and rough road should be resurfaced instead of speed limit. Following on from the statistic and comparison, it is tempting to see the solution proposed by the writer as only responding directly to the traffic problem. Whereas, I am describing my doubtful view of this argument

Firstly, the comparison between Prunty County and Butler County as used in the argument serves to demonstrate the same predicted consequent. Whereas similarity exists between two places, ignoring the uniqueness of each other will dramatise a failure to completely capture the complexity of the situaition. Let me suggest a weird possibility that the road in Prunty County is already double width as those in Butler County, so increasing the road width becomes nonsense to the Prunty County. Moreover, while the Bulter County limit the speed, its punishiment may be much more efficient and contribute most to the success of the accident decrease. No such rigorous punishment, maybe, the Prunty County fail to control the accident number, even if the road is wide and smooth enough. What the Prunty County needs perhaps are more strict traffic rules, which can make an effort economically.

Secondly, the road improvement project the writer mentions about was undertaken five years ago, nevertheless, not suitable for present. The very situstion is changing with the developing of time, so as the problem discussed in the argument. Five years has been past which prevents us from analysing the problem with the same view. Perhaps at that time people in Butler County were well educated with the traffic rules, as a result, few drivers break the rules or subject to an accident. Contributing just a little, the road improvement project probably was useless in the eyes of local people. Hence, we can’t stage the causal relationship between undertaking the project and reducing the traffic accidents. More details should be offered for the comparison between the two places. Thus, according to the similarities and differences, a comprehensive conclusion can be drawn to solve the problem confronted by the Prunty County.

Finnaly, in order to assert his conclusion in a convincing fashion directly primary towars the point, the writer of the argument disputably presents an assumption that the descent of the reported accidents affirm the success of the road improvement project, which supports his argument. However, some factors such as the casualty and the bad impact should be taken into account. If the number of accidents decreases while the damage aggravates, it can’t be view as a progress of the highway safty. On the other hand, the impact on the victim family may be more profound, therefore, the project is even a failure instead of a significant sample. Therefore, to draw out the relationship between the road improvement project and limitation of traffic accidents based on the above assumption is incogitant to accept the writer’s view.

Basing on the statistic and assumption, the argument highlights the role of the road improvement project. What he doesn’t stress is that such plausibility is theoritical and takes place only at condictional situation, and hence can not be extended to provide a perfect solution. To get a further cogent analysis, the writer should consider to base on more reliable evidences and overall assumptions.