GMAT Essay Topic 2015 - The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. It makes no sense that in most places fifteen year olds are not eligible for their driver's license while people who are far older can retain all of their driving privileges by simply renewing their license. If older drivers can get these renewals, often without having to pass another driving test, then fifteen year olds should be eligible to get a license. Fifteen year olds typically have much better eyesight, especially at night, much better hand-eye coordination and much quicker reflexes. They are also less likely to feel confused by unexpected developments or disoriented in unfamiliar surroundings and they recover from injuries more quickly.
The argument claims that fifteen-year-olds should be eligible for their driver’s license as older people can renew and retain their driver’s license without passing another driving test. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that fifteen-year-olds have better eyesight, hand eye coordination, injury recovery and reflexes. They are also less likely to feel confused and get disoriented in unfamiliar surroundings. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that fifteen-year-olds possess all qualities of older people plus some more qualities which older do not possess. However, it fails to mention other factors which could affect the driving abilities. For example, the maturity level of fifteen-year-olds is very low to that of the older.
Second, the argument could have been much clearer if the criteria based on which the licensing authorities have taken this decision of not providing licenses to the young was discussed. In fact, it is not at all clear that at what age is driving license provided to the young.
Finally, the argument fails to mention one of the key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated, namely if the thrill with which the young people drive is discussed there is no reason for the argument to discuss about better recovery from injuries as “Speed Thrills but Kills”.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included all the items discussed above instead of solely explaining the positive features of the fifteen-year-olds, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.