Rate the following argument fragment on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Evidence: accroding to the article in ''Life Goes On Without Cars'', u could park at a garage but its gotta be ownship and u would have to buy space that cost $40,000, along with a home. For example, u would have to buy a house pay for that rent and also pay for the parking fee that u brought with the house. So with that being said u should just buy a house, and not own a car and just walk, ride a bike ,or take a bus to where every u got to go.

Secondly, now there saying in article ''Driving due to smog'' On Monday motorists with-numbered licence plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22-euro fine($31).The same would apply to odd-numbered plated the following the day. That's not right because you brought your  car, but you could only drive it a certain day (would ever the law says). The understanding that I'm getting is you got to follow the law rules when ever that applies to the goverment people, which is understandable. But my point is I brought my car and i should be able to drive my car when ever I feel like it.

Futher more, Now they  want to have a ''Car Free Day'' In the article Car-free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota, they say millions of Colombins hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during a car-free yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams. For example, If the people did drive on a car-free day they would face $25 fine. So if it rained and u needed to get somewhere you could't drive u would have to take a bus, walk, train, or skate. Or you would be fined.

Score: 1