Mechanic urges motorists to 'think twice' before getting an electric car. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Selective use of sources

Relying mainly on one source or type of source while underrepresenting other relevant expert or statistical perspectives.

“Social media mechanic Garaje Hermético has highlighted some key factors he believes people should consider before investing in an electric car instead of a traditional petrol or diesel vehicle.” The article’s critical framing of EVs is built almost entirely around one TikTok mechanic’s personal views. Apart from a brief reference to the RAC on battery life, no other expert sources (e.g., independent automotive analysts, manufacturers’ data, large‑scale studies on EV reliability and resale value) are cited to support or challenge his claims.

3 suggestions

Add data from multiple independent sources (e.g., large used‑car marketplaces, consumer reports, academic or industry studies) on EV battery longevity, real‑world replacement rates, and typical replacement costs.

Include comparative statistics on resale values of EVs vs petrol/diesel cars across different models and ages, rather than relying on one person’s assertion.

Quote additional experts (e.g., automotive engineers, economists, EV fleet operators) to provide context and either corroborate or challenge the mechanic’s concerns.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting assertions as likely or typical without adequate evidence or quantification.

1) “If the battery fails outside the warranty period, it is a repair that will cost you €10,000 or €15,000 or more.” This is presented as a plausible risk but without any indication of how common such failures are, how prices vary by model, or how often full replacement is actually needed. 2) “He explained that a petrol car's resale value would be significantly higher than an electric vehicle's, as the degraded battery could mean a costly repair bill that buyers could entirely avoid by not purchasing.” The statement implies a general rule about resale values without citing any market data or acknowledging that some EVs hold value well, or that petrol/diesel cars also depreciate for other reasons.

3 suggestions

Qualify the battery replacement cost claim with data: e.g., “Depending on the model, out‑of‑warranty battery replacement can range from approximately €X to €Y, though many owners never need a full replacement.”

Provide statistics on the incidence of out‑of‑warranty battery failures and typical remedies (full replacement vs module repair vs software updates).

Support the resale value claim with concrete figures from used‑car price guides or sales platforms, broken down by age, mileage, and model, or explicitly label it as opinion: “He believes that…” rather than implying it is a general fact.

Appeal to authority

Using the status of a person (rather than evidence) to lend weight to a claim.

“A mechanic is urging drivers to 'think twice' before spending thousands of pounds on an electric vehicle.” “Social media mechanic Garaje Hermético…” The article foregrounds the mechanic’s profession and social media presence to give his warnings weight, but most of his key claims (battery replacement cost, resale value, long‑term ‘financial risk’) are not backed by independent evidence. His authority as a mechanic is used as the main justification.

3 suggestions

Explicitly distinguish between his professional opinion and established evidence: e.g., “In his personal experience as a mechanic, he believes…”

Balance his authority with other expert voices (e.g., EV specialists, independent repair shops, or warranty providers) and with empirical data.

Where possible, replace or supplement authority‑based statements with verifiable statistics or studies.

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged framing to influence readers’ attitudes rather than focusing on neutral, evidence‑based analysis.

“A mechanic is urging drivers to 'think twice' before spending thousands of pounds on an electric vehicle.” “…buying an electric car, if you are going to keep it for a long time, is a financial risk.” The phrases “think twice” and “financial risk” are framed to trigger anxiety about making a costly mistake, without providing a balanced risk assessment (e.g., probabilities, comparison with risks of owning older petrol/diesel cars, or total cost of ownership).

3 suggestions

Rephrase to neutral language: e.g., “A mechanic outlines several financial considerations for long‑term EV ownership.”

Quantify the risk where possible (e.g., likelihood of major battery issues vs major engine/gearbox issues in combustion cars).

Present both potential risks and benefits in comparable terms (e.g., total cost of ownership over 10 years for EV vs petrol/diesel, including fuel, maintenance, and potential major repairs).

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex issue to a simple, one‑sided conclusion, omitting important nuances.

“He explained that a petrol car's resale value would be significantly higher than an electric vehicle's, as the degraded battery could mean a costly repair bill that buyers could entirely avoid by not purchasing.” “…as of today, buying an electric car, if you are going to keep it for a long time, is a financial risk.” These statements treat EVs as a single category and imply a general rule about resale value and long‑term financial risk, without considering model differences, government incentives, lower running costs, or the fact that combustion cars also face expensive failures (e.g., engines, gearboxes, emissions systems).

3 suggestions

Clarify that the statements may not apply to all EVs: e.g., “For some models, especially older designs with expensive battery packs, long‑term ownership could carry higher financial risk.”

Include comparative examples of major repair costs for petrol/diesel cars (e.g., engine or transmission replacement) to show that both types of vehicles can involve large out‑of‑warranty expenses.

Discuss total cost of ownership scenarios (fuel, maintenance, tax, incentives, depreciation) for both EVs and combustion cars over similar timeframes.

Hasty generalization

Drawing broad conclusions from limited or anecdotal evidence.

“He explained that a petrol car's resale value would be significantly higher than an electric vehicle's…” “…buying an electric car, if you are going to keep it for a long time, is a financial risk.” These broad claims are based on one individual’s perspective and do not distinguish between different markets, models, or usage patterns. They generalise from limited experience or hypothetical scenarios to all EVs and all long‑term owners.

3 suggestions

Limit the scope of the claims: e.g., “In his view, some current EVs may pose a higher financial risk for long‑term owners, particularly if battery replacement costs remain high.”

Add data showing variation: some EVs with strong resale values vs others that depreciate more, and note regional differences.

Explicitly label these as opinions and contrast them with available market data or studies.

Framing effect

Presenting information in a way that emphasizes certain aspects and downplays others, influencing interpretation.

The article opens with: “A mechanic is urging drivers to 'think twice' before spending thousands of pounds on an electric vehicle,” and then devotes substantial space to battery fears and potential high repair costs. The balancing information is brief: “The RAC indicates drivers can expect more than 10 years or 100,000 miles from their vehicle battery before deterioration becomes genuinely apparent… it doesn't significantly affect the car's performance…” The structure and emphasis frame EV ownership primarily as risky, even though the RAC quote suggests that significant deterioration is relatively slow and mainly affects range, not performance.

3 suggestions

Rebalance the structure so that the RAC and other neutral data are given comparable prominence to the mechanic’s concerns.

Add a clear summary paragraph that neutrally weighs pros and cons: lower running and maintenance costs vs potential long‑term battery considerations.

Avoid leading with a warning headline and opening sentence alone; instead, frame the piece as an exploration of both benefits and risks of EV ownership.