 |
ESSAY OF THE WEEK |
|
|
|
Question
The following appeared in a report to the City Planning department.
"Most commonly, our cement sidewalks are damaged by winter weather and nearby tree roots. Recently, a new paving material has been developed from recycled rubber tires that is strong enough to support the weight of pedestrians, yet flexible enough to resist damage from tree roots and frost heave. As an added benefit, fewer pedestrian injuries are reported on rubberized sidewalks. While the new material costs about the same as cement, it has a rated life of about seven years - half of the expected lifetime of cement sidewalks. Nonetheless, the City should install the rubberized pavement in areas of the City where trees are planted close to the sidewalks. The City will save money in the long run on sidewalk maintenance and replacement expenses, and reduce the number of lawsuits over pedestrian injuries."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Nikhil Ghosalkar: 3/25/2008 |
 |
The report disscusses the effectiveness of substitute for cement paved sidewalks in actual weather circumstances and its comparison overall with respect to cement sidewalks, with supportive evidence.The rubberized sidewalks seem to withstand damages caused by both, the frost and by the tree roots.
Recycled rubber tires is the raw material used in rubberized sidewalks which is serving as a means to contribute to environment indirectly.This in turn is benifitted by reduced costs of maintenance which are incured in case of cement sidewalks.
Its of effective importance that the rubberized sidewalks are proven to be a good substitute for cement sidewalks as they could well withstand the pedestrian weights avoiding injuries thereby reducing the risk factors involved in it for City Planning Department in terms of lawsuits imposed on it by the pedestrians.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
Reference Essay |
|
Based upon the information given, the report erroneously concludes that the City will save money by installing the new sidewalk material. The initial cost of the material is approximately the same cost as traditional cement. The report does not say how often cement must be replaced, only that the rated life of the new material is about seven years and the rated life of cement is twice that. If cement, under ideal conditions, lasts for fourteen years, but in practice has to be replaced every four years, the City may be able to make a compelling case for switching to the new materials. The conclusion would be stronger if the report stated the average replacement cycle for City sidewalks.
The report does not say how much of the City's pavement is affected. If only .05% of the City's sidewalks have to be replaced every year, then replacement with the new material doesn't make sense. If the City replaces 10% of its sidewalks every year due to tree roots and winter damage, the new material could represent significant savings. The conclusion would be much stronger if the report indicated how much of the City's walkways are replaced each year.
The report does not indicate how much the City spends each year in defending itself against lawsuits over broken or damaged sidewalks, and how much the City pays out for such claims. The report also does not indicate the anticipated drop in the number of annual claims. The conclusion would be much stronger if the report illustrated the anticipated savings on personal injury defense and claims as the result of installing sidewalks with the new materials.
The report does not indicate the ability of the new material to withstand snow, snow maintenance and de-icing chemicals. The report would make a stronger case if it stated that the new materials would not be damaged or the rated life of the materials would not be reduced by winter maintenance.
The City would be wise to evaluate the new paving material, perhaps installing a small amount of it at a test site to determine whether or not the material can live up to its claims. After a suitable test period, the Planning Department could determine whether the material would be a good choice for the City.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
