[主题活动] [Big Fish]03月02日Argument237--By swolf54 [复制链接]

swolf54
UID: 2421931

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 29
寄托币: 1214
注册时间: 2007-11-3
精华: 0
帖子: 5

发表于 2010-3-2 13:18:12 |显示全部楼层

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: 424       TIME: 00:30:00       DATE: 2010-3-2 11:01:45

    In the argument, the arguer reaches the conclusion that, in order to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment in Beauville, the local government should provide tax incentives and other financial inducements to encourage private companies to relocate here. To support his proposal, he points out that, in last year, the city of Dillton take a similar serious of policies to attract companies. And at last, two companies moved to Dillton and employ 300 people. However, due to some vital fallacies, this argument in not convincing enough as it stands.
   In the first place, the arguer doesn't make a clear cause-effect relationship between the policies implemented by Dillton government and the moving of two factories within 18 months. It is entirely possible that the two factories moved to Dillton due to other reasons such as Dillton has plenty amount of raw materials that can be used by the factories, or the market in Dillton is large so that demand for products is huge. Since the article fails to account for alternative explanation for the moving of two factories, the arguer cannot make any sound recommendations for Beauville to carry out the same policy.
   In the second place, even if Dillton's policy do successfully attracts the two factories to move into that area, the arguer still cannot get the conclusion that his policy suits Beauville well. In other words, the arguer makes a false analogy mistake here. Perhaps Beauville's public finance is not as good as Dillton, which means that tax reduction and financial inducement will put heavy burden to Beauville government. Or in other case, Beauville has some advantages that DiIlton doesn't have; thus it could attract companies through other method instead of implementing economic policies. Besides, in solving the problem of economic development and unemployment, Beauville government has many other alternative choices which may be better than tax reducing and financial inducements. Lacking considering and ruling out alternative reasons for this disparity, the argument's conclusion is indefensible.
   At last, the argument is based on last year's experience. In this year, the situation of the economy may be totally different from the previous. Perhaps some other industries will thrive in Beavillu, thus the economic development and employment problem will be solved automatically. Thus, the arguer doesn't consider the difference between present and the past.
In conclusion, due to the several mistakes, the arguer doesn't make a sound logic to support his own assertion. In order to strengthen his argument, he needs to provide more information about the effect of the policy and demonstrate the necessity of it.