In the passages in the article What if busy cities had no cars on the streets? By newsela there are two different points of view on the topic whether there should be cars in the city. The author of the first passage believes that there should not be cars allowed in cities from a couple reasons. He believes that there should be no cars on the street because it is good for local businesses, has health benefits, it's less noisy, and no worry of being hit by cars. On the other hand, the author of the second passage believes there should be cars on the street for a couple of reasons. He believes there should be cars aloud because they are not going to reduce violence on public transportation, only a small amount of jobs can be reached by public
…show more content…
In the article Living, working more enjoyable in traffic-free zones, the author makes valid claims that include reasons why cars should not be allowed on city streets. However, the author fails to include valid evidence to support his claims of people walking around also do not have to fear being hit by cars, health benefits, and the streets being less noisy. The author of Public transportation can't replace cars, on the other hand, provides evidence for all of his claims. For example, the author claims that only a small amount of jobs can be reached by public transportation. He used the evidence, “only 15 percent of jobs can be reached by public transportation in less than an hour.” He supported his claim of business will close due to no customers with the evidence, “When cities such as Chicago, Philadelphia and Sacramento tried to change streets to pedestrian-only areas in the 1960s and '70s, customers stopped coming and businesses closed.” Additionally, he claims most car crashes happen in rural areas and uses, “The majority of deadly car crashes occur in rural areas, where fewer than 20 percent of Americans live” to support this claim. All of these pieces of evidence are sufficient evidence. This means that the evidence haves enough to prove the claim. By providing evidence, his argument is more valid and more
In the article Living, working more enjoyable in traffic-free zones, the author makes valid claims that include reasons why cars should not be allowed on city streets. However, the author fails to include valid evidence to support his claims of people walking around also do not have to fear being hit by cars, health benefits, and the streets being less noisy. The author of Public transportation can't replace cars, on the other hand, provides evidence for all of his claims. For example, the author claims that only a small amount of jobs can be reached by public transportation. He used the evidence, “only 15 percent of jobs can be reached by public transportation in less than an hour.” He supported his claim of business will close due to no customers with the evidence, “When cities such as Chicago, Philadelphia and Sacramento tried to change streets to pedestrian-only areas in the 1960s and '70s, customers stopped coming and businesses closed.” Additionally, he claims most car crashes happen in rural areas and uses, “The majority of deadly car crashes occur in rural areas, where fewer than 20 percent of Americans live” to support this claim. All of these pieces of evidence are sufficient evidence. This means that the evidence haves enough to prove the claim. By providing evidence, his argument is more valid and more