Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree
Anyone can see the positive aspects of sport-utility vehicles. They’re great for families of six or more. They have more vertical cargo capacity, sometimes more overall cargo capacity. (Although, due to their larger wheels and tires, most are about equal with station wagons due to cargo area intrusion.) SUVs have a higher towing capacity due to truck chassis and more torquey engines than station wagons, for the most part. For the truly upwardly-mobile families, the truck-based SUVs offer decent-to-good off-road capabilities due to more ground clearance, more suspension articulation, and better underbody shielding. I suppose SUVs offer better visibility because occupants are higher off the road and the frontal visual opening is larger, although that one is debatable. Being high from the ground isn’t necessarily a welcome characteristic, though.
In 2003, there was an 11 percent increase in SUV crash deaths. There were 456 more deaths in SUVs than cars; more than half of above deaths were from rollovers. 22% of all auto deaths were from rollovers, compared with 62 percent of all SUV deaths. Last year, SUV rollover fatalities increased from 2448 to 2701, a 10 percent increase. Cars and pickups both saw a drop in the number of fatalities, 7.5 percent and 6.8 percent respectively, but both SUVs and vans saw an increased fatality rate of 6.8 percent and 3.6 percent in vans. Those are startling statistics, though the increase in SUV fatalities is linked somewhat to their increased sales. The worst statistic of all is the occupant fatality in rollovers, which is an astonishing 35.2 percent. More than a third of all rollovers result in death, which is both horrible and amazing. That SUV manufacturers have not addressed the issue of a too-weak body cage is disgusting. These numbers are too big to ignore, yet the manufacturers do just that. I doubt they care, as long as Joe Public thinks that because his SUV weighs over two tons, he’s safe.
SUVs are not only dangerous to their occupants, they’re dangerous to the cars with which they share the road. The difference between the average weight of passenger cars and light trucks (the category under which SUVs are grouped) is 1,185 pounds. Over half a ton more weight can do indescribable damage to a subcompact or a sports car. Also, the average SUV’s bumper is 8 inches higher than a car’s, meaning a higher point of impact in an area not designed to absorb such high forces. Because of this, 80 percent of deaths in an impact between an SUV and car are occupants of the car. In a side impact collision, the occupants of a car are 27 times more likely to die if struck by an SUV than a car striking an SUV. SUVs, due to their higher fatality rates and the increased destruction caused by them to cars, raise prices of insurance for everyone as well. They are a bane on our population and should be moderated.
SUVs also damage the environment. Their larger, normally less-sophisticated engines slurp more gas. This increased gas usage translates to higher CO, NOx, and HC output, to the obvious detriment of the atmosphere. (LA, anyone?) Maybe dealerships should institute a “buy an SUV, buy two acres of forest” program to help clean the air. SUVs are also models of material excess; to build a vehicle of that size would obviously require more steel, plastic, leather, glass, et cetera than a passenger car, depleting natural resources and increasing intrusion on nature. SUVs, the ones that actually see the flora and fauna off the beaten path, are also damaging to their surroundings. With their lugged tires and portly weight, SUVs tear up plants and destroy animals’ homes.
Americans and, increasingly, people from other countries are living lives of excess. The popularity of the SUV is proof. Some people buy big SUVs though they have but one kid and live in the suburbs, simply because they’re now a status symbol. They’re too big, too bling, and use too much gas. (Remember that we only have about a 40 year supply… at the current rate of consumption!) The new official vehicle of the modern yuppies is the SUV. With twenty-inch wheels and tinted windows, one becomes like a rock star or rapper. Had it even occurred to them (and any of you considering an SUV because it’s big or bling or your neighbor has one or Arnold has one or the commercial has that band you liked back in the Seventies) that they’re increasing our dependence on foreign oil or reducing the amount of time researchers have to come up with a viable alternative to fossil fuels? Extremely doubtful. How about this statistic: 5 percent. 5 percent is the percentage of SUV owners who actually take their SUVs off the road. All the rest just ferry around their 1.2 kids while basking in the fact that their point of view is higher than those in cars. Also, the number of SUV drivers who subconsciously exceed the speed limit is quite high, due to the fact that being higher from the ground leads to a lessened sense of speed. A bunch of speeding SUV drivers on their cell phones should be used in the Army; their destructive power would be devastating.
|
Constructive criticism...
As for statistics, you lose your reader's attention when you just go on and on about numbers. Summarize, noting trends. Detailed statistics should be used every now and then, but it takes away from the flow of the analytical part when bombarding your essay with them. You're arguing a point, not providing a market analysis or progress report.
The more slang you use, the less professional it seems. Less professional = less serious = less convincing. i.e. "yuppies" and "bling"
Cite/Credit sources of information. The evidence supporting your arguments seem to come from thin air. Uncited evidence is worthless. According to who? Who said it? EPA? NHTSA? Independent research firm? Consumer Reports? Numbers coming from an argumentative writer (esp one without legitimate credentials) isn't convincing enough.
Don't assume something from your audience (i.e. first sentence, "Anyone can see..."). You're making the audience do half the work for you by assuming your counterargument, the other perspective. Provide anything necessary your audience needs to know regarding the subject.
Again, personal pronouns (I, you, me) usually weakens the argument. In this case, it does.
Regarding content, you can develop more upon the safety issue conceptually. A car's safety is fundamentally judged on two aspects: (1)how well it can withstand a collision and (2)how well it can avoid a collision. And logially, accident avoidance is the most preferred. Sure SUV's are strong and will most likely save your life in the event of a collision, but it loses to most cars in the avoidance part. Maneuverability to avoid an accident is key, and cars are generally just more agile. You can use physics as well as statistics (consumer reports?) to support that....
Theres also a psychological aspect regarding safety that I read somewhere, something having to do with the driver's "invincible" mentality and disconnection from the dangers of the road.
Overall, the article seems too personally biased rather than argumentative. Overall, it isn't terrible, but there is plenty of room for improvement. Of course, this is totally my humble critique based on my humble writing experience.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree
Don't worry about how it's written, worry more about the facts contained in it.
|
Remember, presentation is just as important as content, if not more important. Any lawyer can tell ya that.