[Big Fish]3月2日Argument237 by-Sansouci

SansouciUID: 2755036

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: 353
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-3-2 20:52:22

In this analysis, the arguer claims that the fastest method for Beauvile to amass economic development and strengthen reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial incentives that encourage private companies to relocate. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites that the example of the city of Dillton through reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent, and offering relocation grants and favorable rates on city utilities to any relocated company in Dillton, as result, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton even employ a total of 300 people during 18 months. This argument is unconvincing for several critical fallacies.

First of all, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. According to the cited experience of Dillton, through reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent and offer relocation grants and agreeable rates on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton, which is understandable. This fact tells very little about what actual geographic situation, development level, and resident population in Dillton. Only when speaker clarify the difference between Dillton and Beauvile is not exist, then I can be convinced. Consequently, it is unwarranted to assume that the experience of Dillton is considering.

In addition, there is mentioned that the two manufacturing companies which relocated to Dillton employ a total of 300 people. But arguer not gives a clear explanation that where are these people come? Are these from local people or company admitting in other cities? Under these circumstances, it is unfairly assume that the measure would hence reduce unemployment for local people.

Finally, the arguer fails to consider several other relevant factors that may stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment of Beauville. For instance, through provide financial aid to current local companies, not only save expense which attracting new companies, but also better resolve local people's jobless problem.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that potential market in Beauvile, learn the difference between Dillton and Beauvile, later decide to adopt Dillton's way in order to stimulate economic and resolve local unemployment.