Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour.  Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent.  But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period.  Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.  

　　This argument does not have any concrete information.  It seems by Forestville, increasing their speed limit more accidents occured.  We all know that accidents occur reguardless of what the speed limit of the highway we travel.  Fortunately, Elmsford's accidents decreased during the six-months in discussion.  This could be because of good weather, careful drivers, or any number of situations.  On the other hand, Forrestville had an increase in accidents.  The only determining factor given was the speed limit increasing. This in fact probably did play a big role in why there was a 15% percent increase in the accidents, but may not be the only factor.   In order to make an accurate judgement on why there was an increase in automobile accidents the situation  needs to be researched. Solid facts need to be stated.   Clearly, to reduce the speed limit back to normal in Forrestville would not eliminate the problem. Comments: 

　　This limited critique is plainly flawed.  The author begins with a criticism about the lack of "concrete information" but then fails to provide any concrete analysis in the response.  The writer cites the drop in Elmsford's accidents but does not develop any of the reasons mentioned to account for the drop: "good weather, careful drivers, or any number of situations."  

　　The writer then goes on to discuss Forestville and suggests that the speed limit "may not be the only factor," but this point is not developed either.  The author issues a generic call for more research and facts and offers an unsupported conclusion of his or her own: "Clearly, to reduce the speed limit?

　　would not eliminate the problem."  Although the author appears to know that there is something wrong with the argument, he or she does not seem to know how to critique the argument in greater detail.  

　　The response demonstrates adequate control of the elements of writing, but the analysis is so underdeveloped that it cannot earn a score higher than 3.