The government should lower the railroad company’s property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping.

This may not be good.... Poor work

Argument:

“While trucking companies that deliver good pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities.  The government should lower the railroad company’s property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping.  For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport.  Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increase in rail traffic would not require building new line at the expense of taxpaying citizens."

Question:

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and use the evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refuse the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion. 

Answer:

The first issue to be addressed is that there is no data about fuel consumption of trucks and railroads while the author mentions that train would consume about thirty percent of fuel a truck would need to move the same amount of package.  As technology is developed nowadays, cars and trucks dramatically increase their cost effectiveness.  For example, Prius, an ecologic car manufactured by TOYOTA, can drive more than 35 kilometers per a litter.  However, there is no figure how far trains can transport for with the same amount of fuel. 

Also, the conclusion is based on an uncertain premise that no more rails needs to be built newly.  To be more convincing, the author must indicate how large of areas are covered with highways and railroads, and compare each other.  Generally speaking, highways cover more areas including countryside than trains do.  For example, the United States totally relies more on highways than rails because highways are extended to almost every area, including Warrensburg where I have stayed in, just ten thousand of people live.  The author must show how much railroad covers in the area to make transportation available. 

Moreover, the author does not consider any other type of transportation.  Although the statement compares trucks and trains, airplanes and shipment are also frequently applied to carry package.  Both ways of transportation are well developed enough to deliver goods to everywhere in the world.  Airplane is the fastest while shipment is usually most affordable.  Besides, the government usually protects transportation industry to maintain it.  Therefore, lowering taxes on railroad company would not develop train transportation.  The author should argue about more kinds of transportation other than only truck and trains. 

While it may seem true that the government should lower taxes on railroad companies to be developed, some flaws makes it weak.  The argument must contain data of fuel consumption on truck and rails, availability of railroad, and other types of transportation available.  Before any conclusion is made, all probable aspects must be well explained.