Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
I am against driverless cars because in paragraph 7 and 8 says, "The car can handle driving functions at speeds up to 25 mph, but special touch sensors make sure the driver keeps hold of the wheel. In fact, none of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, the brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zoness and around accidents. This means the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over when the situation requires." Therefore the cars are not driverless if you have to still be awere and take controle around work zones or accidents. Driverless cars are supposed to be driverless meaning no driver needed. Also another thing is " The google car simply announces when the driver should be prepared to take over." Why does a driverless car need a driver? Does the place that made them not know how to make what the car is called true? " Why would anyone want a driverless car that still needs a driver?" I could ask everyone the same question. Do you really want a driverless car that still needs a driver? I'm sure no one would even if it's driverless, if they read about it they will find out it's not completely driverless. So why get something that is false advertised.

Score: 2