Critical Analysis of Driving to the Funeral

Question

Before You'll check the Analysis Sample from our professional analysis writers, let us give you 1 advice. If looking for exclusive and affordable assistance in analysis paper writing - you can hire an analysis paper writer in few clicks! Fill in the order form below, write down the requirements and deadline for your paper and receive an A-grade analysis paper in time!

Critical Analysis of Driving to the Funeral

‘Driving to the Funeral,’ an article by Anna Quindlen, presents a powerful argument against underage driving. The article focuses on the number of teenagers who fail to graduate because they lost their lives in road carnages. The author mainly attributes the cause of these accidents to the inexperience of the teenagers and the sheer recklessness associated with driving at a tender age. The author suggests an umbrella solution to the problem by suggesting that the minimum driving age be drastically increased as a panacea to the problem of losing young lives to road accidents.

The article appears to be advisory and is targeted at a parental audience. The target audience comprises parents with school-going teenagers who have attained the minimum driving age and qualify for a driving license. The author appeals to parents to be patient and wait for their child’s full development into an adult before allowing them to drive themselves. 

In passing across her point against ‘under-age driving,’ Quindlen makes it clear that the major cause of death among young college students is road accidents. She uses statistics to support her arguments, citing statistics from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that indicated that driving at sixteen years of age was not recommendable and a reason for many road accidents. She also makes a comparison between 17-year-olds who drive and their 16-year-old counterparts. The stark contrast between the numbers of road accidents between the two supports her point that underage driving is dangerous.  

`The author has strategically structured the text chronologically, linking one paragraph to the other.

The author develops her story by linking each paragraph by introducing a fact or an analogy. For instance, in the first paragraph, the author introduces the story by re-creating the somber mood of parents and friends having to attend the funeral of a child and friend. This is followed by the clear statement of the fact in the second paragraph that the number one killer of youths between the ages of 15 years and 20 years is road accidents. This is followed by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fact in the third paragraph. Through this technique, the author juggles the audience's emotions while remaining objective and within the boundaries of realism. Through this technique, the author has built on the thesis and illustrated her point.

To capture the audience’s interest in the story and persuade it to consider her viewpoint, the author uses analogies appropriately. She focuses on the love parents have for their children and poses the question: if a parent knew about behavior that would result in the demise of their child, would they not act on it? This is a rhetorical question that has a great impact on any parent. It is the catch statement that the author uses to persuade the audience that underage driving is not worth what it promises. By creating a balance between attending a funeral and waiting a few years for a child to mature past the dangerous age of 16, the author can convincingly persuade the reader to support her stand on the issue.

The evidence that the author uses to support her claims is factual and open. There are several instances where facts are quoted as an illustration.

To begin with, she quotes the statistics by The National Highway Safety Administration that determined the correlation between the higher number of deaths among sixteen-year-olds licensed to drive and 17-year-olds.

It was much lower among the more mature 17-year-olds than the 16-year-olds. Furthermore, she cites 1984, the presumed solution to the problem, in which the drinking age was raised. However, there has been no considerable effect from the regulation. This also aligns with other stiffer regulations like those in New Jersey. These have also been found ineffective as youngsters still flaunt this regulation in youthful defiance.

Based on the author’s approach and support of her statements, she strongly appears to have expected opposition. Parents who allow their children to drive at a young age are the major part of the audience that would seem to oppose the argument. Those in opposition would argue that driving increases the child’s freedom and allows the parents more time to focus on pertinent issues. However, the author counters this argument by presenting the rhetorical choice of whether parents want to see their children receiving their diplomas alive or posthumously.

Conclusively the author’s general argument appears to be highly effective. This is because it is founded on strong points and supporting evidence. The author has been able to convincingly argue that underage driving is dangerous and there is no way to circumvent the issue but to raise the minimum age of driving. By raising the age, the youths are more mature and better able to follow road rules and drive more carefully than at a tender age characterized by childish adrenaline. Rather than fallacious rules that have no impact, this will save more young lives than the country is currently losing. The author poses the choice to the parents, whether they need their children to graduate themselves or to continue collecting posthumous diplomas.