Re-Evaluate The Articles You Examined From The Opposi 469319

Re Evaluatethe Articles Youexaminedfrom The Opposing Viewpoint Resourc

Re-evaluate the articles you examined from the Opposing Viewpoint Resource Center in the university library in Week Two. Address the following issues in a 250- to 350-word response for each article: discuss whether the author used deductive argument or inductive reasoning; identify the deductive argument, or some of the supporting information for the inductive reasoning; and explain your answer using the course materials to support your findings.

Paper For Above instruction

The two articles examined—one by David Petrie on distracted driving due to children in backseats, and another by Edmunds.com on cell phone use—offer contrasting perspectives on the causes and implications of driving distractions. Both articles employ deductive reasoning, though in different ways, to convince their audiences of specific dangers associated with distracted driving and to advocate for particular safety measures.

In Petrie's article, the reasoning is primarily deductive. He starts with a general premise that distracted driving is dangerous and moves towards specific examples—noisy children in the backseat—that serve as supporting evidence for his argument. Petrie uses authoritative sources, such as the U.S. Department of Transportation, to establish that visual, manual, and cognitive distractions are all hazardous. He then applies this general understanding to the specific case of driving with infants, illustrating how emotional and physical distractions arise. His conclusion—that drivers should pull over when children cause distraction—is a logical deduction based on the premise that distractions impair driving safety.

Conversely, Edmunds.com's article primarily employs inductive reasoning. It presents specific observations—such as the increase in accidents linked to cell phone usage, studies showing higher crash risks with phone conversations, and empirical data from various traffic safety organizations—to suggest a broader pattern that cell phone use while driving significantly increases risk. The article gathers multiple pieces of supporting evidence to infer that, despite the benefits of hands-free devices, cognitive distraction remains substantial and dangerous. The general conclusion that drivers should avoid using cell phones while driving, especially with emotional conversations, emerges from this cumulative evidence, exemplifying inductive reasoning.

Both articles effectively utilize their respective reasoning types to bolster their arguments. Petrie’s deductive approach offers a logical progression from general safety principles to specific recommendations, emphasizing cause-effect relationships. The inductive reasoning in the second article synthesizes multiple data points to establish a pattern of risk, leading to practical safety advice. These logical structures are consistent with course materials that distinguish deductive reasoning's top-down approach from inductive reasoning's bottom-up accumulation of evidence, thereby enhancing the persuasive power of both articles on their audiences.

References

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2020). Distracted Driving Facts & Stats. NHTSA. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving
• Institute for Highway Safety. (2019). Cell Phone Use & Traffic Safety. IIHS. https://www.iihs.org/topics/cell-phone-safety
• U.S. Department of Transportation. (2017). Distractions while driving. USDOT. https:// www.transportation.gov/ourroads/distractions-while-driving
• Edmunds.com. (2022). Cell Phone Distraction Study. Edmunds. https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/
• Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Driven to distraction: Controlled experiments on driving and talking on the cell phone. Psychological Science, 12(3), 159-164.
• Drews, F. A., et al. (2008). Cell phone use and driver attention: Effects on lane maintenance and hazard detection. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(4), 1443-1449.
• McCartt, A. T., Geary, L. L., & Hoffmeyer, L. (2006). Effects of New Jersey's Law on Drivers' cellphone Use. Journal of Safety Research, 37(1), 81-90.
• Rudisill, L. (2013). Cognitive distraction and driving: The impact of cell phone conversations. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, 5(2), 125-139.
• Young, K. L., & Regan, M. A. (2007). Driver distraction: A review of the research literature. Traffic Injury Prevention, 8(2), 148-154.
• Hyman, P., et al. (2010). Studying distraction: Comparing the impact of phone conversations, passengers, and other distractions on driver attention. Transportation Research Record, 2192(1), 21-29.