"Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. But last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. A better alternative is to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, and so would reduce rush-hour traffic rather than fostering an increase."

The author has concluded that adding a bicycle lane rather than a traffic lane would prove more beneficial in reducing the traffic problems of Blue highway. The author has cited the failure of the traffic lane in a nearby Green Highway to strengthen his contention. However, his argument his rife with holes and assumptions, which, if not supported with additional evidence will highly diminish its persuasiveness.

Firstly, the author assumes that the worsening of traffic jam on Green Highway after addition of a lane last year is going to remain the same in coming years as well. There is a possibility that the finishing of the additional lane required the frequent movements of heavy equipment like excavators, rollers, cranes on the road that worsened the traffic condition and once the job is complete the condition will be ameliorated. Perhaps the last year was an anomaly because the area faced unprecedented flood hazards that caused a higher level of traffic jam, irrespective of the number of lanes on the road. If either of such scenarios prove to be true, author’s contention will be highly weakened.

Additionally, the author implies that the keen bicyclists in the area will use bicycles even for the regular commutes. While making this implication, author fails to consider the possibility that the people are only keen on bicycling to commute occasionally and not every day for the effort it takes. Or maybe the keen bicyclists in the area are those people who only use it for short refreshment trips and don’t really use the Blue Highway, hence having no effect on the traffic of the highway. Thus, if the author wants to improve the credibility of his argument, he must provide additional information on keen bicyclists of their area and whether their interests warrant building a bicycle lane.

Building on the implication that the keen bicyclists in the area will commute using the bicycle lane, the author assumes that they will “only” use the bicycle lane, hence not interfering with the rest of the traffic and not exacerbating the problem. However, this might not be true. Perhaps the bicyclists are not disciplined and keep on changing lanes which will disrupt the flow of traffic. Consequently, the traffic problems increase. The traffic may also use the bicycle lane in order to escape heavy traffic in the regular lane, that may decrease the safety of the highway and increase the accidents, which will ultimately worsen the traffic problem. These examples weaken the forecast of the author, and he would benefit from mentioning further information about the bicycle lane, and its separation from the traffic lanes,

All in all, the author has put forward a ponderable proposal of building a bicycle lane instead of an additional traffic lane. While his conclusion may still hold water, there are many unwarranted assumptions that cast doubts on it. So, if the author is able to support his assumptions by scientifically fetched evidence, his conclusion can be very valuable for the people using Blue Highway for commute.