Not a complete mess. Not a good argument either... (archive)

The complete automotive resource for buyers, sellers, and owners like you.

"Acceleration is the most significant real-world performance statistic in American driving conditions. 75% of all driving is done between stoplights in straight lines, with speed limits of 30-50 mph. 20% is done on freeways, which have speeds limited to 70 mph (therefore negating the significance of top speed). The remaining 5% is done on winding roads. For purpose of argument, let's say .1% of driving is done on race courses."

If one agrees with this premise, your argument is a almost lucid, albiet not a very informative one based on the regretable absence of direct evidence to support your claims. So what this amounts to is an argument of interest only to those who care how *you feel*. Not so good. And not so interesting.
Accepting this fault and returning to your premise of:

"Acceleration is the most significant real-world performance statistic in American driving conditions."

1) Here, while defining your premise, it is wholly imprecise and unsubstantiated. That is to say this may be so in the world according to Jim, but beyond that, where are the data to support this absolute claim? So while your premise is clear, it is invalid until you manage to demonstrate otherwise, and to do so with a predominant agreement among recognized experts or your own properly collected data.

Next:
" 75% of all driving is done between stoplights in straight lines, with speed limits of 30-50 mph. 20% is done on freeways, which have speeds limited to 70 mph (therefore negating the significance of top speed). The remaining 5% is done on winding roads."

2) Interesting numbers, but aside from the speed limit, from where or how did you arrive at these figures? These statements are simply hyperbole until this question is satisfactorily answered.

Next:
" For purpose of argument, let's say .1% of driving is done on race courses."

3) You should state for the purpose of *your* argument, which is the only purpose such an unsubstantiated number can serve. You've also managed to create a "straw man" argument by injecting an opposing point of your own making, and one that only serves the purpose of a weak argument.

Next:
: "Certainly, BMWs excel on winding roads and at race courses, but as I've made clear here, winding roads and race courses compose only a small percentage of all driving conditions. In the overwhelming majority of driving conditions, a better performing vehicle (in real-world terms (ie, acceleration)) is available for less money."

4) If you are suggesting that a vast majority of roads contain no curves(winding??, then that will be a difficult claim to support.

Next:
"None of this is to say that BMWs are bad cars. They're excellent, and in all but a few cases (318, 528, 740, and Z3) are better all-around cars (in my opinion) than their competitors."

5) Jim, this is all opinion here, your opinion. Are you presenting yourself as an expert? If so, where are the data to suppport your claim to fame?
If not, than who cares except maybe those close to you, and this is a wholly unsubstantiated statement.

Next:
"So the whole point of this long-winded post is to say that BMWs are not the best accelerating cars in their classes?" you say. No, that's only the support for my point. My point is that acceleration is really the only relevant real-world performance statistic."

6) Actually, the support for your point is your own unsubstantiated albeit clear premise. Here, the argument becomes tautological, since it is based on your beliefs, not evidences. Now, if you want to argue beliefs, good luck finding anyone with half a brain that is willing to enter into this type of untenable farce. Better to argue whose God is the real God at the local pub.

"I'm sure I'll hear from BMW owners here who road race their cars and measure their cars' performance by their lap times. But I point out that the 98% of the time that you're not racing your car, you're accelerating from stop light to stop light. And in those conditions--the preponderance of all moments you and your car spend together--your BMW is a less than "ultimate" driving machine."

" All of which raises a second observation: "Why do you care?" I care because I work in advertising, and I'm fascinated by how marketing skews consumers' perception of fact and truth. BMW has gone to great lengths to portray their cars as real driver's cars. In commercials, most models are shown screeming through tight turns in a mountainous country side. I can't imagine that BMW owners get such an opportunity more than a few times a year."

8) Fascinating and humorous too. Here your claim to advertising and it's ills are perfectly and ironically stated in your own argument against such ills; an argument that is based on little "fact" or evidences, and a reality that is skewed directly and in proportion to your argument. Now that is a perfect demonstration of irony and advertising. Thank you.

" A lot of people have bought into the BMW "mystique." And they've paid significantly for it--these are expensive cars. The majority of them will barely explore the road-course abilities of their vehicles. For them, their BMW is a fashion accessory. They could have bought a less expensive vehicle, but they instead chose a car which enhances their image (yes, BMWs are safe, luxurious, and well-built, but the Japanese meet them in all three categories and for less money, so it's image which tips the scales for these owners)."

9) "A" - Who could argue that some BMW customers buy their cars based on discretionary costs. That is so with many things. So what? "B"- However, does this mean that others cannot buy the same car for other valid traits, or that the car does not possess these virtues? "A" does not lead to "B". This argument fails miserably on this fundamental weakness. As for the rest, Jim, you haven't made it worthwhile.

Finally Jim, as I have stated in my previous assaults on poor arguments, this is not an assault on you. I hope you can understand that and accept that. Some folk get way too attached to their opinions or statements, as if they could not be changed, when in reality, these are more easily changed than a pair of socks.

Now, besides demonstrating that I have too much time on my hands, I have also demonstrated how the argument you've presented is not a valid one, and does not really deserve a rebuttal based on facts since you've presented only two: the speed limit, and how some people make their purchases for different reasons. Both of these points are not informative. Anyone who hasn't just fallen off a Christmas tree is already aware of these factors. Further, your modus tollens, A=B, fails completely showing little logical lucidity. Further still, the "straw man" approach is a common one, but not very effective. It serves only the purpose of those who believe(not agree)with the presenter of the argument. Therefore, no such argument was ever neccesary and serves no one but perhaps those who like to hear or see their own words.

What can I say, Jim? I've learned not to argue beliefs (they are tautological), or obscure opinions(they are not evidences). Your argument is the only evidence presented, and as it stands, it has been refuted.

Questions, comments, or problems, please visit the Roadfly help desk.