ARGUMENT237，求拍砖，谢谢，有拍必回

peterboyUID: 2638100

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."
WORDS: 468
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009/8/26 16:34:46 Peter

Merely based on the dubious evidence that Dillton (D) reduced its corporate tax rate and offered better policy for companies to come, along with the unfounded assumption that this change leads to the arrival of two manufacturing companies, the arguer draws the conclusion that Beauville (B), should follow D's example to stimulate economic development. This argument is filled with several fallacies.


To begin with, the causal relationship between this new policy in D and the arrival of two companies is not well found. It is highly possible that the tax rate in D was far beyond the average level of this country including B. If it is the case, the reducing of tax rate is not founded reason to attract companies. Other factors like the location, the environment, the market as well as people's purchasing power are all important to consider for companies' relocation. Without eliminating such scenarios, the causal relationship cannot be firmly founded.


Moreover, given the new policy of reducing tax rate as well as offering grants and favorable rates is indeed responsible for the arrival of two companies, the conclusion is also unwarranted as the comparison between D and B are not guaranteed. A large sum of empirical evidences show that perhaps D is a place better for the development of companies while B is a beautiful attraction where a myriad of travelers coming every year. Or perhaps D has a lot of unemployed people so it is urgent to attract companies to come while people in B are mostly well hired and happily working in recent companies thus no need to attracting new companies to come at all. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer can never unfairly say B should copy D's example.


Furthermore, even assuming B and D are truly comparable, the arguer hastily comes to the conclusion that this policy is the fastest way to stimulate economic development and encourage private companies to relocate in D. As we all know, there are lots of ways to stimulate economic development like improving the competitiveness of companies or develop service industry like tourist industry. In the absence of comparison, the result that this new policy is the best way to stimulate economic development is open to doubt. Besides, private companies' coming is not guaranteed as we do not know whether two manufacturing companies moved to D are private or not. Consequently, the conclusion is unwarranted.


In sum, the argument is wholly unpersuasive as it stands. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer should provide more evidences to demonstrate the cause and effect between the new policy and the companies' coming to D as well as the comparability between B and D. Besides, it will help if more factors are considered and analyzed to prove this new policy is really the best choice.