The passage and the lecturer both discussed about the same topic. While the lecturer argues with
that there are few cons available for autonomous driving, the lecturer disputes the argument made
in the passage. He thinks that driverless cars/autonomous cars make life even more miserable.
According to the passage, it seems having an autonomous car which is completely well programmed,
works in very flexible and in an efficient way. It would cause less of pollution as people keep on
starting the engine repeatedly and cause lot of loss of fuel and cause pollution, Autonomous cars
would be able to communicate with other cars as well, so it would be easy to detect the location and
would cause less traffic too, and individual could work and watch videos and use social networking
website even while driving, also causes less accidents as it is programmed by humans which is not
prone to any accidents.
Secondly, The Narrator argues that driverless cars would cause a problem as it Human-made and it is
prone to error, also stated about an accident happened last month only about that car which is
mentioned in the passage already. There would be more pollution as there would be no longer need
of driver license and no age restriction, However more people would be on the road which would
rather increase a pollution, also he mentioned that most of the time people spend time on phones
and social media instead they should enjoy driving the cars and listen music which would give a
different level of enjoyment instead of wasting time on phones.
In conclusion, the passage contends about the pros of the driverless cars and explained various pros
like less pollution, no accidents, less traffic. In contrast, the narrator contends about the cons of the
driverless cars and explained various cons such as more traffic, more pollution, and talked about the
car accident mentioned in the given article.