Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Imagine this, you are on a cross-country road tip with your family.You are in the passenger seat while you significant other is driving with your two children in the back. What do you do? You sing, you talk, and you laugh, but the biggest thing you do is make memories. Now imagine you are doing all of this while your car is driving itself. What happends when something goes wrong and an accident occurs and you can no longer make these memories with your family anymore. Driverless car pose many threats in todays society. They suggest lazyness and take the fun out of driving. They can't without any certain stop all car accidents that happen on a day-to-day basis. They also can be unrelistic. For these reasons why, driverless cars are not a nessasary item to have in the future.

To start off, a driverless car would impose lazyness for the person who opperates it. How would you tell who can opperate one and who can't? How would you have a driver's test if the car drives itself? That also takes the fun out of learning how to drive also. Yes, it would be easier and less work but then you would not have the memories that come with learning how to drive and the feeling of learning and experiencing something new that you will use for the rest of your life. Memories that you won't have if your car does all the work.

The next reason why driverless cars are not a practical invision is because they are not completely driverless. In the article the writer states, "... the human driver must remain alert and be ready to take over...". That means that sleeping while driving

would not be safe nor would interacting while on the road. All you would be doing is driving with no hands acentually. The article also bring's a point about if an accident were to accure, who would be to blame? Would it be you or the manufacturer? If someone is injured who do you put the blame on? The person with there hands at there sides or a huge manufacturing company like GM? The practicallity of a car thar drives itself is another reason why driverless cars are a negitive, not a posituve want for the future.

My last reason for why a driverless car is a negitive rather than a positive is the fact that they are unrealistic and unpractical. The average day person can't afford a BMW or a car made by google. So how do these companies think that a car that drives itself would not be the same? The article also makes a point to say, " Mercedes-Bens, Audi, and Nissan plan to have cars that can drive themselves by 2020." Two things stick out in that sentence, one being that all three of those car brands are labled as luxuary cars, and second being that this dream car would not be accessible until the year 2020. For this reason why i believe a driverless car is a dream only meant to come true in a Jenson's episode, rather than everyday life.

To conclude, a driverless car would be easier in a way that you would have a little more lee-way to move in your car more, like to get that fry you dropped inbetween the console and your seat for example. But, it would also take the memory of dropping that fry in your car.They would make you feel lazy, could

also cause more trouble if you were to ever get into an accident, and they are not practical for an average day Joe. For these reasons I believe that a driverless car would be a strong negative rather than a positive.

Score: 4