| TOPIC: ARGUMENT237 - The following appeared as part of an article in a local Beauville newspaper. "According to a government report, last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton. Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, where they employ a total of 300 people. Therefore, the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements that encourage private companies to relocate here." In this analysis, the author [url=]conclude[/url][S1] that the fastest way to accelerate the B's economy and reduce its unemployment is to adopt the similar policy taken by D. [url=]Relatively[/url][S2] sound it may seem, careful scrutiny reveals that the argument is based on several unwarranted assumptions and the reasoning is biased due to the scant evidence provided. The argument is problematic for the reasons to discuss below. First of all, the argument relies on the unproven cause-and-effect relationship between the measures taken by D. and the relocation in of the two companies. The author fails to account for the possibility that it is the other factors that lead to the movement of the two companies rather than the new incentives in D. In fact, perhaps the two companies relocate in D for its suitable natural resources and the low payment of its workers. The basis of this argument is weakened, if no more evidence are provided to ensure the causal relationship. Secondly, even if there is such causal relationship, inadequate evidence are provided to ensure the efficiency of the new policy. 18 months is rather a long period of time while the advent of 2 new companies which create 300 new positions is comparatively small effect. Hence, it is highly suspicious that the policy adopted by D has really worked. Furthermore, even if the policy really works, we can't take it for granted that the measures taken by D will certainly have a similar effect on B. It is entirely possible that the two cities share little similarity in economy, culture background and population composition, which will make the situations far more complicated. Without detailed information, how can the author safely come to such an analogy? Finally, the author make a too hasty conclusion without considers many other courses of actions that may contribute to the economic development and reduction of unemployment in B. For instance, encouraging the local people to begin an own undertaking may be an effective way to reduce the unemployment and stimulate the economy. In absence of these comparisons, the author's assertion of "the fastest" is unconvincing. To sum up, the argument is weaken by several logical fallacies. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more substantial evidence concerning about the assumptions on which it bases. |
| 欢迎光临 寄托家园留学论坛 (https://bbs.gter.net/) | Powered by Discuz! X2 |