Killing Machines by Linda McQuaig Analysis Essay Example

Car safety has been a prevalent topic that many individuals have sought to advocate about because of the many concerns that vehicles pose to us. Within her text “Killing Machines", Linda McQuaig voiced her strong opinions concerning the lack of safety that SUVs can produce. Her argument was that there are more negative aspects to SUVs than positive and that they only serve as “killing machines'' to the world. Individuals that dislike SUVs from personal experience or not would most definitely agree with McQuaig’s argument. But, her argument lacks in three crucial ways within her essay. There is a use of statistics but a lack of sources to back them up, biased for not including more research on car safety and seems to downplay any positive aspect that an SUV might have. Although Linda McQuaig's argument that SUVs are unsafe to humans is understandable, it can be rebuked because of her lack of clear and concise evidence. 

First, McQuaig attempts to justify her ideas on SUVs by using a handful of statistics. Although statistics are an extremely important part of selling your points, McQuaig’s lack of sources makes her "evidence" unreliable. McQuaig first uses the statistic that SUVs have an 8% higher fatality rate than those of cars in 2000 (McQuaig, 2004). This statistic could have been used as an important selling point for her argument but her lack of sources raises a lot of eyebrows. How can you use very important statistics but not include sources for them? As it is very unlikely that McQuaig is plagiarizing, that leaves the question "why use an important statistic without the use of a source?". This can ultimately mean that McQuaig is using false data as a way to sell her argument.  Another example of this is said in paragraph seven where McQuaig goes on to explain that SUVs produce about 40% more greenhouse gas emissions than regular cars do(McQuaig, 2004). Again, while this statistic does sound believable, the absence of a credible source is greatly apparent. 

Second, although the article was created in a way to view SUVs as "battering rams for other vehicles", McQuaigs decision to not include general car safety creates a biased atmosphere for readers. She seems to find any data or statistic (credited or not) that helps to aid her point and this, in turn, creates a sense of personal hatred towards SUVs. If an addition of general car safety statistics were added, whether they be positive or negative, McQuaig would have had a stronger argument and data to back herself up. Having data from all aspects of the argument would have been more fair for readers. This is because it's extremely important to hear both sides of an argument before you can make an opinion for yourself. Situations like these can be best described through the rules of a court. Before a jury and a judge can make a decision, both sides must have an equal chance to explain the situation in which they were in. Because McQuaig lacks this important feature in her argument, she allows for a biased atmosphere to be formed. 

Last, McQuaig’s third crucial mistake is that she contradicts herself when trying to explain the negative aspects of an SUV. This contradiction is found within paragraph four where McQuaig goes on to say that SUVs offer a sense of security in an age of fear (McQuaig , 2004). She then goes on and says that SUVs are more likely to roll out when compared to regular-sized cars(McQuaig, 2004). Not only has she outright contradicted herself, but she has downplayed a positive aspect of an SUV. McQuaig nonchalantly integrates positive aspects into her article and then proceeds to downplay them as a way to prove her point. McQuiag is allowed to use ideas and points that help aid her argument. But, the fact that she contradicts herself and invalidates positive aspects of an SUV clearly seems unfair.

McQuaigs argument is fair to say the least. SUVs are not always going to be seen as safe vehicles by many people. And this is entirely fair. But because McQuaig's argument has many faults, she fails to persuade readers. The downfalls were found with her lack of important sources, her inability to create a non biased environment, and her downplaying of positive aspects. Improving upon these criticisms would greatly enhance McQuaigs text and make for a persuading argument.