Rate the following argument fragment on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Evidence: . If a regular car gets into an accident, we have laws that say who should be at fault. Also, it can already be complicated to figure out who should take the blame today with regular cars. If we all drove driverles cars, a new stack of laws would have to be made to support them. Getting used to those laws would be hard because we have never lived in the world of driverless cars. In the article it says, "If the technology fails and someone is injured, who is at fault- the driver or the manufacturer?" This is a good point. If there is an accident where someone gets injured, not everyone will agree who should take the fall for it. There will be riots and fighting between manufacturers and individuals, and overall, it is not worth it. We should not destroy what we already have for something this risky.

Score: 2