[a习作temp] argument192 0806Gstrive小组 miao96 [复制链接]

miao96
UID: 2360053

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 143
注册时间: 2007-7-8
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-2-21 23:31:22 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

argument 192

The editorial recommends the merge of Rosevile and West Rosevile. The author claim that the merge will eliminate the residents' confusion about which authority to contact and will save the administrative costs. The author also point out that the merge will undoubtedly attract business investment. I find this claim problematic in several following aspects.

The threshold problem about the editorial is the claim that the merge of the two townships will eliminate the residents' confusion about which authority to contact. Although the merge is necessary to eliminate the confusion, the editor overlooks the possibility that the merge will not in itself suffice to eliminate the confusion. Specifically, until the residents realize the merge and get to know how to respond it appropriately, the confusion will continue. Therefore, some measures of communication should be taken to assure the elimination of confusion.

The argument also assumes unfairly that the merge will surely save the administrative costs. The editorial seems to make two irreconcilable claims. One is that the merge will result in the decrease in the number of faculty in city government; the other is that no current employee will be become unemployed as a result of the merge. The editorial fails to consider that eliminating duplicative jobs would decrease the number of current municipal employees and the resign of the municipal employees will increase the administrative costs. Therefore, as it stands the argument is self-contradictory.

Finally, the author's claim that the merge will attract business investment relies on the hasty assumption that the newly merged Rosevile would be similar to Hamden in every way, affecting their attractiveness to business investment. It is possible that Hamden's business rates, labor pool, or even climate are more attractive than the newly merged Rosevile's merge would be. If so, then the proposed merge in itself might accomplish little toward attracting business investment to Rosevile. Without evidence that Hamben and the newly merged Rosevile would be equally attractive to business investment I cannot accept the author's conclusion that the merge will carry the same result for Rosevile as for Hamben.

In sum, the editorial not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions. To strengthen the argument the author must modify the recommendation to account for other measures needed to eliminate the confusion mentioned in the editorial. The author must also provide a cost-benefit analysis about the saving of administrative costs due to the merge. Finally, the author must show that the new Rosevile would be just as attractive to business investment as the newly Hamben has been.

[ 本帖最后由 miao96 于 2008-2-21 23:42 编辑 ]