Rate the following argument fragment on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Evidence: In the text it stated that "None of the cars developed so far are completely driverless. They can steer, accelerate, and brake themselves, but all are designed to notify the driver when the road ahead requires human skills, such as navigating through work zones and around accidents" meaning that at some point the driver would have to help the car navigate at times when the car couldn't(7). Which imposes that the drivers would have to be aware of his/her surroundings at all time when the time was needed for them to take the wheel again. But, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the car being driverless. No one would want a driverless car that still needs to be driven? "Wouldn't drivers get bored waiting for their turn to drive"(8). And the most important question is, what would drivers do to pass the time when they're not driving. They could distract theirselves with their phones, music or any passengers which could cause them to miss out on any important message from the car telling them to drive or take over in the needed situation. This is where the reckless aspect of the driverless car comes in. Missing the important message could cause accidents and harm to other drivers or pedestrians. And, this cause of harm to others around leads to my next argument against driverless cars and that is lawsuits.

Score: 2