Many people are quick to disregard the dangers that come with using your phone while driving. A majority of them don't think anything bad could happen during the two seconds that they take their eyes off of the road. Using your phone while driving is a bad habit that many drivers have developed, whether it be to reply to a text or to change a song, people are using their phone as if it were a customary part of driving rather than the unnecessary risk that it actually is.  In his article, "Texting and Driving is More Risky than Driving Under the Influence," Michael Fumento uses logos to show his readers the dangers of being on the phone while behind the wheel. His use of logos is effective because he references statistics and case studies that show the dangers of texting and driving while also using rational thinking to explain why it should be treated like the risk that it is.

 Fumento uses a variety of statistics and case studies to appeal to the logical reasoning of his readers. This is one of the main reasons why Fumento's article is so compelling since he understands the proper way to enlighten people on the subject, since regardless if you disagree with him, its impossible to disagree with the facts. One of the strongest points that supports his argument is when Fumento mentions a case study which found that "on average, driving at 70mph, one man braking suddenly while legally drunk (0.08 blood alcohol content) traveled 4 feet beyond his baseline performance. But reading an e-mail while driving sober, he traveled 36 feet beyond the baseline result and 70 feet while sending a text" (Fumento). Nearly every driver in the world knows how dangerous drinking and driving is, as we are constantly reminded by ads and news stories of the harm caused by it. The same can not be said about texting and driving, which drivers do not take as seriously. For example, no parent would ever want their child to drunk drive or be in the car with someone who is, most parents explain to their kids that drunk driving is not a last resort, but it should never be an option. The sad truth is that many of these parents wouldn't think twice about texting and driving, even if their child was in the car. The problem is that people just don't seem to take texting and driving seriously. By directly comparing drinking and texting and driving, Fumento hopes his readers realize how similar they are. The real world case studies presented by Fumento is an effective supporting argument as it makes people think about an everyday situation that they have most likely been in. We've all found ourselves running a stop sign or braking at the last second because we were distracted by something. By providing these statistics, he effectively shows that distracted driving, regardless of the distraction, is an unnecessary risk that people shouldn't take. 

By showing how texting while operating a vehicle impairs your driving just as much as drinking does, Fumento is able to portray to his audience why texting and driving should be treated as the serious offense that it is. Fumento believes there is a simple solution to solving the texting and driving problem and it is not by text education but rather to legal action, he believes people should be charged serious offenses for willingly putting yourself and other people's lives in danger, regardless is if it because you are drunk behind the wheel or trying to send a text. To make his point, Fumento shows the incredible disparity of the penalties for texting and driving and drinking in driving in the state of California. For texting, you'll receive a $20 fine while drinking carries a jail sentence of four days to six months. By seeing the effects of both and then the subsequent fines, Fumento illustrates just how ridiculous these laws are. Fumento is trying to make people realize that driving under the influence of substances is not the only danger out there, they have to look at the big picture, which is that any form of distracted driving is dangerous. Driving while distracted can be caused by a variety of different things, but what regardless of what the distraction is, the thing the distractions all have in common is that they negatively impact your driving ability. Society is constantly changing, and our laws must change to reflect that. Through the use of logos in Fumento's article, people see how comparable texting and driving is to driving under the influence and it becomes hard for them to argue why one's punishment is far less severe.

In my opinion, Michael Fumento ended his article on a high note when he was able to connect pathos with his logos driven argument by saying "For now, all you can do is control your own conduct, including downloading software that automatically blocks outgoing messages while turning off alerts for incoming ones. No message is worth dying for." (Fumento) I thought this use of pathos was a very powerful way to end an article which was mainly focused on logos. Throughout his whole piece, he constantly stated facts about how bad texting and driving is and had all sort of statistics that showed his point. But when he concedes that its almost impossible to stop people from being distracted while driving, he ends his article with that quote and his persuasion take an unexpected shift from logos to pathos. This tonal shift was so effective since throughout his article, Fumento had mainly been focusing on logos with only minor appeals to ethos and pathos. But with this major shift from logical appeals to a more emotional one, it feels as though he is telling the reader to take the facts and statistics personally rather then just hard numbers. 

Fumento's article "Texting and Driving is More Risky than Driving under the Influence," reveals an everyday problem that many people don't even realize is one. Being on your phone while driving is such a common occurrence, people this day and age, for the most part, don't even think twice about it. By writing mainly about logos in his piece, Fumento hopes of appealing to the logic and reason of his readers, as most everyone would agree that distracted driving is bad, he just needs to bring to light what distracted driving really is. I believe him to be successful in that regard and even as little as spreading the word about this issue is enough to make a difference. Though its impossible to stop everyone from being on the phone while driving, which he notes in the article, it was safe to say that he was successful in persuading at least some of his readers.  

