You know when you walk into in ice cream shop expecting twenty…

Question Answered step-by-step You know when you walk into in ice cream shop expecting twenty… You know when you walk into in ice cream shop expecting twenty flavors andthen you go inside and there’s only one? It’s a one-size scoop, no waffle cone, and notoppings, just a scoop of ice cream in a bowl. This is what its like reading Benefield’sargument regarding drivers and cyclists. Benefield gives less effectiveness in herargument of misplaced hatred for cyclists due to the fallacies in her writing. She statesher assumptions and reasoning, persuading readers to coincide with her assumptions onthe matter.The first fallacy I could see was the slippery slope fallacy. Making anassumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events,when procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events. Benefield writes, ” the law alsoreads that drivers must maintain a 3-foot buffer when passing someone on a bike, or slowdown and pass only when it would not endanger a cyclist’s safety” (Benefield.) She thenstates, “but it’s not cyclists who are making it unsafe; it’s careless, frustrated, angrydrivers. And those same drivers should not dictate who gets to use the roads.”Eventhough some drivers may not follow these rules, she says that it is the careless, frustrateddrivers who are causing the problems and not following the laws of the road.Herspeculation assumes that all drivers are careless, frustrated, and angry which is a falsestatement because not all drivers are this way. As she stated before, there are laws andregulations made for the road, drivers, and cyclists in order to inhibit this behavior aswell as set procedures when laws are not abided by.Another fallacy she uses to readers is she appeals to emotions. She begins herwriting by describing a story of motorist who had made a hit-and-run to four cyclists. Shealso writes that the driver had done a previous hit-and-run before while also consumingalcohol. This may tear at a readers heartstrings but what some may not see as a reader ishow she inevitably wants you to agree to her belief that drivers are the problem on theroads and not bicyclists. What about the stories of a motorist helping a cyclist on theroad? Or what about the many cars that slow down when they see a cyclist on the road?Or what about negligent cyclists that are unaware of their responsibility and obligationsto safety on the road? The article is written in one perspective, without looking at adifferent side of the story of drivers behaving appropriately to cyclists, but rather theperspective that drivers are bitter to cyclist. She uses mainly the words ‘angry’,*frustrated’, and ‘bully’ to the word drivers and gives more of a preferred light to cyclists.The use of emotionally charged language to distract readers and listeners from relevantreasons and evidence is what Benefield appears to accomplish in her writing.She bringsup the argument of misplaced hatred for cyclists but there seems to be little reasoning asto why and more of assumptions of bitter natured drivers towards cyclists. This in turndoes not give a good effectiveness of her argument to the issue.Please paraphrase this writing. Arts & Humanities Writing Creative Writing ENGL MISC Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)