[Big Fish] Argument237 by Greeky

greekyUID: 2605662

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 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."

time:25min

word:437

Grounding on a correlation between the fact that last year the city of Dillton reduced its corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, it began offering relocation grants on city utilities to any company that would relocate to Dillton and the fact that Within 18 months, two manufacturing companies moved to Dillton, which employed a total of 300 people. the arguer claims that the fastest way  to stimulate economic development and hence reduce unemployment is to imitate what D have done. However,from my perspective,the argument suffers from several logical flaws.

First of all,observing an correlation between the D`s favorable policies such as low tax rates and trants and the new companies coming into D,the arguer claims that the former event should be responsible for the later one. However, the arguer fails to rule out possible reasons for the later one such as the favorable environment or the huge potential market,to just a few possibilities. Besides,It is entirely possible that the two companies had decided to move into D before the D took new policies out. Thus maybe the companies` moving is not affected by the D`s policies. Without ruling out possible reasons such as those discussed above the arguer cannot justifiably establish a causal relationship between the two facts.

Moreover,the arguer`s claim that the D`s success can be transplanter to B relies on a assumption,which might be a poor one. The arguer assumes that everything will be the same both in B and D. However,the arguer fails to account for the fact that there is no two places are the same even in one state. It is entirely possible that the V is completely different form the D. Perhaps the economic condition,or perhaps the environment. Thereupon,with accounting for the possibilities the arguer cannot draw the conclusion depending on this assumption.

Finally, the arguer assumes that the new companies` moving into will surely reduce the unemployment. However, the evidence cited in the argument does not provide strong support to what the arguer maintains. According to the arguer,the two new companies in B bring about 300 jobs,which is too few to salve the unemployment condition. Perhaps compared with the population of V,300 is a vary small percentage. Thus maybe there are still other options to reduce the unemployment. And so the arguer cannot assert that the method is the best---he does not provide other options in the argument.

In sum,the argument would have to be more logically acceptable if it had included the factors discuss above.