Electric Cars Flashcards
Try to "see" the flaws from this argument.
Electric cars have a very short range. One has to re-charge them every 200 miles or so. This means that they are of no use on a long journey.
What is the assumption about people’s use of cars?
It assumes people want or need to use their cars for long journeys.
Travelling in an electric car is a bit like returning to the early days of motoring, when trying to find a fuel station was a frequent source of anxiety.
What is the assumption about recharging stations?
It assumes there are long distances between/infrequent charging points.
Travelling in an electric car is a bit like returning to the early days of motoring, when trying to find a fuel station was a frequent source of anxiety.
What is the inconsistency in this argument?
It is inconsistent because it the early motor car overcame similar problems it suggests the electric car could one day overcome them as well.
(which then suggests that such cars will not be a disappointment).
Electric cars have a very short range. One has to re-charge them every 200 miles or so. This means that they are of no use on a long journey.
What is “wrong” with the conclusion?
It is exaggerated. The difficulties don’t make the car totally useless for such journeys. The journey may just require more thought. For example, you may need to plan your trip based on where you can recharge.
Whilst they do not burn fossil fuel directly, they still rely on electricity being produced in order to charge the battery. This simply puts the consumption of fossil fuel back a stage.
What is the assumption about the source of the electricity used to power these cars?
It assumes that producing electricity necessarily involves burning fossil fuels.
In many places, there is ample supply of electricity from wind, solar and hydro energy.
Whilst one could artificially create a noise, this would seem foolish as a quiet car would clearly be of great advantage in combating urban noise pollution.
What is the assumption about the nature of the artificial noise that could be produced?
It assumes that the electric car has to be noisy all the time to be safe for pedestrians/cyclists. It also assumes it would need to be just as loud as petrol cars. The car could use a safety system such as a small noise when the car was near pedestrians.
“New law will see silent electric cars fitted with WHITE NOISE to warn pedestrians they are approaching.”
So one has either a noisy and safe electric car or a silent and deadly one.
What is the assumption about the way we sense traffic?
It assumes we rely on hearing to become aware of hazards on the roads.
So one has either a noisy and safe electric car or a silent and deadly one.
What is the name for this fallacy?
The writer is restricting the options. It might be possible to create a noise that is sufficient to warn pedestrians and cyclists which is still not as noisy as the internal combustion engine. Electric cars could therefore be considerably quieter.
“New law to tackle electric cars’ silent menace to pedestrians.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/06/new-law-combats-silent-menace-electric-cars
The electric car makes no contribution to the problem of urban congestion. A traffic jam of electric cars is just the same as a traffic jam of fossil-fuelled cars.
What is being assumed about the problem(s) caused by traffic jams?
It is assuming that congestion caused is the only factor that needs considering when evaluating traffic jams. Stationary traffic also increases pollution therefore a traffic jam of electric cars would not be the same as a traffic jam of fossil-fuelled cars as it would cause less pollution. One could use a similar argument as regards noise.
However, this is not the solution to the problem of the car that many hope for. The electric car will prove a disappointment to those who think it is.
Why is this a non sequitur?
The electric car would not have to solve ALL problems associated with cars in order not to prove a disappointment.
That is, just because it won’t be a perfect solution doesn’t mean it will be a disappointment.
If, for example, you go up from 50% to 65% but don’t get 100% (perfection), you can still be content with your mark.
