Essay Sample on Mandatory Helmet Law for Bikers

Introduction

The sample critical essay that I chose is on page 210 which is about Helmet Laws discriminate against bikers. The author of this essay is Stan Daniels who argues from the point of being a motorcyclist in Pennsylvania. Stan Daniels believes that the mandatory law of Helmets is a denial of freedom because vehicles and passengers largely contribute even the fraction of the total road accident fatalities with only one percent being motorcycles. Generally, the argument can be regarded as a valid argument because it portrays the most important aspects of a good discussion which are certain premises and logical correctness. The claims by the author can also be considered to be true because they do not conflict with his personal experiences.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Taking into consideration the five steps of analyzing arguments discussed in chapter seven, it is essential to start by noting the thesis argument of the critical essay. The leading case of the author is that the mandatory law on helmets in Pennsylvania is a denial of freedom and it should be voluntary like in other states. The reasoning that the author has provided to support this claim is the statistics of fatalities caused by motorists and the fact that even the individuals with helmets also often get injuries from casualties almost equally to the others who do not wear helmets. The author also claims that mandatory helmet laws are annoying and are not necessary to a minority of individuals who have the right to make their own decisions that do not influence others. Therefore, according to Daniels, the government should let the citizens make their free choices of safety measure that meet their demands.

The implicit reasoning in the critical essay regarding the mandatory helmet laws is the concern of the fraction of the statistics of fatalities to which motorists contribute as well as the comparison to the policies of other states regarding the safety measures for drivers which are voluntary unlike the case in Pennsylvania where the helmet rule is made mandatory. This is evidenced by the recent poll survey conducted by local television as stated by the author. The author further claims that the results of the poll survey showed that 82-percent of the respondents supported the repealing of the existing mandatory helmet laws. This evidence indicates that a good number of motorcyclists think of voluntary safety measures and the compulsory helmet laws is a denial of freedoms. Additionally, the author also feels that the necessary regulations are oppressions to a particular majority which is unpleasant just like a small group of hunters would not care to wear bulletproof vests every time they go into the woods.

The logical fallacy that is implemented by the author of the critical essay of "Helmet Laws Discriminate against Bikers" is the bandwagon fallacy. Generally, the bandwagon fallacy assumes that a concept is correct and valid because someone else or another group of people agrees to it. In this case, the author bases his claims that mandatory helmet laws are a denial of freedom because several people are also in support of this claim. For instance, the author cites that all other states except Pennsylvania have embraced the voluntary safety measures and even the idea that a large percentage of up to 82-percent of people who participated in a survey is in support of the repealing of the existing laws. The only problem with the logical argument implemented by the author is that the more significant proportion of individuals who accept the claim is not an adequate sign that the application is justified.

Generally, the premises of the argument of the author are correct that it is only in Pennsylvania where there is the enactment of mandatory helmet laws as compared to other states. Also, the principles of the argument of the writer are correct because the fatalities that are caused by motorcyclists in the United States does not constitute to more than one percent as compared to the 15-percent of total pedestrian fatalities and 25-percent of the deaths caused by trucks and buses. The reasoning of the author is deductively valid because it is derived from generalized principles which are true and arrives at a specific solution which is the repealing of the existing act. The writer of the essay commits two logical fallacies that can be together referred to as bandwagon fallacy. The two logical fallacies committed by the author of the critical article include the ad populum fallacy which implies basing an argument on a claim because a majority of individuals agree with it together with the consensus gentinum which refers to the consensus of the people; generally accepting a claim because relevant authorities embrace it.

The writer in this sample critical essay presents his points clearly and precisely with logically consistent claims that end up in a relevant conclusion taking into account the appropriate evidence. The writer has shown his claims clearly by providing a valid comparison of the legal safety measures of other stated in contrast with the mandatory helmet law of Pennsylvania as well as providing an argument based on the statistics of the fatalities to which motorcycles are involved in comparison to the casualties that include pedestrians, buses and even Lorries. The claims are logically consistent by asserting that hunters would not care to wear bulletproof vests every time they go into the woods because they are not forced. Therefore, the mandatory helmet rule should be amended to be voluntary because every individual is aware of their level of demand for safety and the type of safety needs that best suits them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a good argument is one that is valid or strong and is based on the principles of reasoning that are true and are relevant to the determination. This critical response was focused on analyzing the validity of the argument presented in the critical essay by Stan Daniels regarding the mandatory helmet law for bikers which the writer regards as a discriminator for a small group of people. Generally, the claims presented in the argument are valid and accurate and based on the consistency of the evidence presented by the author. Generally, considering the proportion of motorcyclists who get involved in fatalities, the safety measures should be set to be voluntary because everyone is aware of their safety demands and the standards that appropriately suit their requirements rather than feeling oppressed by enacting a compulsory act within one state which is completely contradicting to the legal policy of other nations. According to the outline presented in chapter 8 regarding the framework of a valid and reasonable argument, the argument presented in the critical essay can be summarized as good and compelling because it is consistent and relevant to the conclusion.