Heather Higbee
Composition 2000
Dr. Eric Mason
3 February 2009
Analysis Draft: Cell Phone Use While Driving
Using a cell phone while driving is argued to be extremely dangerous, putting both the driver’s life and the lives of those travelling around him or her at a great risk for accidents, injuries, and even possible death. While analyzing two different articles on this topic, it was found that different methods of argumentation were used to present and support this topic. The first article, entitled “Cell Phone Use While Driving Increases Crash Risk” was found on
www.webmd.com. The second article, entitled “Cellphones and Driving” was found on
www.iii.org (the website of the Insurance Information Institute).
The claim of the article published on the WebMD website is that there is “growing evidence that use of cell phones increases crash risk”. The assumption, or warrant, is that people will care about putting themselves and others around them in danger, which is a reasonable argument for everyone on the road. This article uses a claim of policy to try and assert the argument to the reader – it says that “There is mounting evidence that talking on a cell phone while driving contributes to increased car accidents and fatalities…Motorists may want to pull over or use hands-free technology, and should avoid emotional or stressful conversations.” The claim of the Insurance Information Institute Article, however, is a claim of fact, as it states, “Increased reliance on cellphones has led to a rise in the number of people who use the devices while driving. There are two dangers associated with driving use, including text messaging.” The assumption, or warrant, of this article is that people, as stated before, will care about putting both themselves and others around them in danger on the roads.
The backing of the WebMD article’s argument contains factual information as well as a personally-recalled account of a mother in a situation where cell phone use killed her child. The article begins by describing different bills and ordinances that were passed to ban cell phone use while driving. Yet, “As similar legislation is proposed nationwide, the cell phone industry has launched a public education campaign.” The first ordinance passed was in Brooklyn, Ohio, “…banning cell phone use while driving”. This article, written back in 2000, talks about similar pending legislation to ban cell phone use in eight states. Another type of backing to support the warrant and claim is the story of the mother who lost her child. As she said, “’I watched my daughter die’… [she] was killed in her car seat when the car in which she was riding was struck by a motorist using a cell phone”. This evidence would appeal to an audience mainly of parents with children of any age. Bringing out the idea that cell phone usage while driving could cause death of someone’s child lets one parent empathize with another and possibly predict themselves in a similar situation, causing them to reconsider use of cell phones while driving. Moreover, Vice President of Communications of the Insurance Information Institute says, “’Cell phones are an excellent safety device on the open road, but they’re strongly linked with serious accidents in industry research’”. With this factual information and a personal account, the article leads the reader almost without a doubt into the belief that driving while using a cell phone is extremely dangerous.
The rebuttal presented in this article is that daily, “’…there are 100,000 calls to 911 from cell phones… And these calls are saving lives by decreasing emergency response times’”. Anyone who has needed a cell phone for use in an emergency situation would argue that cell phone use while driving is necessary under certain circumstances, so this subject is presented as a rebuttal. In all, it seems this piece is trying to persuade parents and people who can empathize with parents. Through use of the story of Patricia Pena and the death of her two-year-old, Morgan Lee, a strong ethical case is presented which draws the reader’s attention and could cause drivers to rethink using their cell phones while driving.
The backing of the Insurance Information Institutes’ argument is built with facts. The first few bullet-points of the article contain “studies about cell phone use while driving…” which “…have focused on several different aspects of the problem”. As the article continues to say, “Some [studies] have looked at its prevalence as the leading cause of driver distraction. Others have looked at the different risks associated with hand-held and hands-free devices”. Along with the studies presented, the article contains information about state and federal initiatives, such as the fact that “About 17 states have passed laws banning or restricting young drivers from using cell phones”; how businesses are involved in disallowing workers to use cell phones “…while driving to conduct business”; and even a court’s decision about a woman who won “$5.2 million settlement” from the International Paper Company, just because one of it’s workers rear-ended her car while talking on a cell phone”. Anyone who has been involved in an accident of any caliber which involved cell phone use would agree with this presented information. As well, it shows the monetary damage that could come from using cell phones while driving. In society today with our falling economy, people need to hold on to all the money they make – if using a cell phone while driving could cause such great monetary damages, it could make people rethink the value.
The rebuttal to this argument is presented in the first few sentences of the background information given. “Cellphones play an integral role in our society. However, the convenience they offer must be judged against the hazards they pose. Inattentive driving accounted for 6.4 percent of crash fatalities in 2003 – the latest data available…” They know that cell phones are important to people in our society and admit this is true to the reader, but then try to drag the reader’s attention back to the fact that they are very dangerous. This argument leaves very little room for rebuttal. Using information such as statistics, court cases, and cell phone studies, this article provides all the factual details needed to convince a reader that using a cell phone while driving is a poor choice. Anyone who would not be convinced by hearing stories of people affected by the dangers may be convinced, perhaps, by actual information studied and gathered from legitimate sources.
Posts
