Question

Read the following passage and then respond to the directions below. I play professional basketball, and I gotta have the right equipment to get the job done. Of all the things I need to be at my best, it's my shoes that make or break it for me. After all, I've got to travel up and down that court a hundred times a game. For our city to be at the top of its game, it needs good shoes too, a commuter system that's top notch so our quality workers can get in and out of the city quickly and safely. Less hassle means more productivity. That's why I encourage you to join me in voting "Yes" on light rail. Explain how the argument illustrates endorsement and why that fallacy makes the argument weak.

Answer 1

Urban areas subsidize transit systems to reduce congestion, pollution, and improve access to jobs, leading to potential economic growth and increased livability. Subsidies align with goals of sustainable development and social equity.

Step-by-step explanation:

Urban areas are often willing to subsidize urban transit systems because a strong public transportation network can lead to numerous societal and economic benefits. These benefits include reduced traffic congestion, lower pollution levels, enhanced access to employment and services for residents, and overall improved urban mobility. By subsidizing transit, cities aim to encourage more people to use public transportation, which can lead to increased productivity and economic growth.

The argument for subsidies generally makes sense when considering the broader goals of urban planning and sustainable development. These goals often align with making cities more livable, reducing reliance on personal vehicles, and minimizing environmental impact. Additionally, subsidies can help make transportation more affordable for all, which is a critical aspect of social equity.

Answer 2

The argument in the given excerpt endorses light rail because it is connected to one of the passion the entire city shares. It connected to the working class needs to be supported for them to work better and produce better outcome to support the passion.

This fallacy weakened the argument because it consisted an individualistic point of view rather than a general view to it. It focused on people who make shoes only and seemed like it will only benefit shoe makers and not all fields of workers.