At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Which lines in this editorial show faulty reasoning If you are like me, such a law would be a catastrophe and would only mean one thing: the end of life as we know it. Do not "nearly half" of all accidents involve men, and would not the streets be safer, then, if male drivers were outlawed? And what about the percentage of accidents that occur on paved roads—should we do away with paved roads too? Weaver also claims that "a majority of seat belt violations" are the fault of the under-21 crowd. But let me ask you this: Do people under the age of 21 really wear their seat belts less often than older people, or are they just caught more often? But I can hear it now: "If teenagers are all so safe, why do they have such high accident rates?"
I believe it is A...an opinion is faulty logic
rad this and see if it helps http://www.midlandisd.net/cms/lib01/TX01000898/Centricity/Domain/129/COUCH%20PPT.pdf