【big fish】3月2日argument237---by Jenius

jenius4869UID: 2659821

237.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（营业税率） 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 newspaper, the author asserts that the fastest way to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment for Beauvile is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducement which could attract private companies to relocate there. The author also cites the similar method executed in Dillton which he believes has a remarkable effect on Dillton's development. For several logical fallacies, I find it unconvincing.

To begin with, the most fundamental problem with the author's proposition is that he relates two independent incidents together without obvious evidence. Several measures taken by Dillton, including reduce its corporate tax rate and offer relocation grants, does not necessarily result in these two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton. Just depend on the fact that one happened after another cannot conclude the first one causes the later one. Moreover, 18 months is a long time to suggest the companies' relocation has anything to do with the action taken by Dillton. It is entirely possible that these two companies determine to move to Dillton because of the high population there, or the location is very proper to expand their business. Therefore, lacking confirm and sufficient evidence to prove the relationship between the two incidents, the author could not draw any conclusions.

Even if the incentives have stimulated these two companies moved to Dillton, it is too early to say  that the Beauvile could also succeed by simply imitate Dillton. Since the author fails to consider the different situations of these two places, such as the number of population, the current corporate tax rate and the investment condition for companies, we could not ensure the experience of Dilltion would make a contribution to the economic and social development of Beauvile.

Finally, the author claims that the fastest way for stimulate Beauvile's economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial assistances is not reasonable enough. Without considering other feasible ways which may also improve the employment in Beauvile and economic advancement in Beauvile, the "fastest way" is an overstatement. For example, to provide more job opportunities by financing the local current companies may also stimulate economy since these companies are likely to hire more people to expand business. Unfortunately, from this argument ,we find no sign of such comparison among many proper projects.

To sum up, this argument is unpersuasive for the aspects I discussed above. To better evaluate the author's suggestion, I need to conduct a survey to understand the actual reasons for why these companies choose to move to Dillton. At the same time, it is also necessary to find out the differences and resemblances between these two locations, so as to make a rational choice that could contributes to the development of Beavuvile.

tc1220UID: 2585174

In this newspaper, the author asserts that the fastest way to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment for Beauvile is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducement which could attract private companies to relocate there. The author also cites the similar method executed in Dillton which he believes has a remarkable effect on Dillton's development. For several logical fallacies, I find it unconvincing.

To begin with, the most fundamental problem with the author's proposition is that he relates two independent incidents together without obvious evidence. Several measures taken by Dillton, including reduce its corporate tax rate and offer relocation grants, does not necessarily result in these two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton. Just depend on the fact that one happened after another cannot conclude the first one causes the later one. Moreover, 18 months is a long time to suggest the companies' relocation has anything to do with the action taken by Dillton. It is entirely possible that these two companies determine to move to Dillton because of the high population there, or the location is very proper to expand their business. Therefore, lacking confirmation and sufficient evidence to prove the relationship between the two incidents, the author could not draw any conclusions.

Even if the incentives have stimulated these two companies moved to Dillton, it is too early to say  that the Beauvile could also succeed by simply imitate Dillton. Since the author fails to consider the different situations of these two places, such as the number of population, the current corporate tax rate and the investment condition for companies, we could not ensure the experience of Dilltion would make a contribution to the economic and social development of Beauvile.

Finally, the author claims that the fastest way for stimulate Beauvile's economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial assistances is not reasonable enough. Without considering other feasible ways which may also improve the employment in Beauvile and economic advancement in Beauvile, the "fastest way" is an overstatement. For example, to provide more job opportunities by financing the local current companies may also stimulate economy since these companies are likely to hire more people to expand business. Unfortunately, from this argument ,we find no sign of such comparison among many proper projects.

To sum up, this argument is unpersuasive for the aspects I discussed above. To better evaluate the author's suggestion, I need to conduct a survey to understand the actual reasons for why these companies choose to move to Dillton. At the same time, it is also necessary to find out the differences and resemblances between these two locations, so as to make a rational choice that could contributes to the development of Beavuvile. (加个建议把，如果要得到作者的结论，需要提供哪些具体的EVIDENCE)

差不多啦，就这些点~