In a letter to the editor of the Balmer Island Gazette, the author recommends that the town council “limit the number of mopeds rented by the island’s moped rental companies […] during the summer” in order to “attain the 50 percent annual reduce in moped accidents” on the island this year. The author’s main conclusion draws upon two key pieces of information — the moped’s effect on increasing the population on the island and a similar efficacious policy put forth on the island of Seaville last year. However, before this recommendation can be deemed cogent by the public reader or the town council, the answers to several key questions must be scrupulously evaluated.

First of all, are Balmer Island and Seaville Island comparable? In other words, can the circumstances on Seaville Island serve as an accurate model to make generalisations about the other island? For instance, there is a strong possibility that the population and geography of the island are vastly different. Why does this matter? The answer is clearer upon further inspection. Perhaps, Seaville Island’s population is smaller and much older than Balmer’s (and only younger folks tend to use mopeds). As a result, the reduction of mopeds from 50 per day to 25 per day adequately reduced moped accidents, since Seaville did not have that many moped users to begin with. However, this arbitrary 25 per day rental reduction may prove futile in Balmer, given that the population may be twice or three times as large as Seaville’s. Furthermore, there is the potential that the geography of Seaville is less friendly to moped-users. This might cause some individuals who may be interested in renting mopeds though turned off slightly by the rental limit to seek other modes of transportation. On the other hand, Balmer Island may be much more urbanised and therefore, far more moped-friendly and individuals may try to find alternative means to acquire mopeds (e.g., online or the black market) in order to get around. With these two scenarios in mind, if either has merit, then the conclusion drawn by the author is significantly weakened.

Furthermore, it is important to discuss the author’s weakest point — the assumption that the reduction in moped rentals is the immediate cause of decline in accidents. What if there are alternative reasons for Seaville’s accident reduction last summer? As the apothegm goes: correlation does not equal causation! There is still the likelihood that there are external factors. For example, perhaps the summer months in Seaville proved to be especially poor for moped usage — constantly raining or far too hot to warrant moped-use, especially when vehicles provide air conditioning. Another possibility is that Seaville’s economy might have been performing poorly and people were very reluctant to spend money on rentals. In fact, they may have even chosen to stay at home way more often than prior years. Since the author provided no adequate proof that rental limits were the sole reason for the accident reduction, the argument at hand is very weak.

In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to several unwarranted assumptions, including the bad case of generalisations and reliance on correlation. If the author is able to answer the two questions above with more evidence — perhaps in the form of systematic research studies, geographic and demographic segmentations, and surveys — then it will be much easier to evaluate his recommendation to the island. Without additional evidence, such a claim is pure sophistry at best.