Argument 177

kevin_6603UID: 2170493

The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.

“Membership in Oak City’s Civic Club-a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues-should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City’s Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City’s Club in the last ten years.”

The argument above presents a sound case for arguing that since only residents pay local taxes they are the only people who sufficiently understand local business and political issues, the membership in Oak City’s Civic Club should be limited to local residents. To support this recommendation, the arguer also cites the fact that in the last ten years very few non-residents of Oak City who work in Oak City have joined nearby Elm City’s Civic Club, which is open to any person. However, the argument suffers from several critical flaws and is therefore unpersuasive.

First of all, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the fact that only residents pay city taxes and the assumption that only residents understand the business and politics of the city. Even given the dubious assumption that being a local taxpayer affords one an understanding of local business and political issues, it is fallacious to conclude that being a local taxpayer is a necessary condition for understanding these issues. Moreover, common sense tells us that local business people, residents or not, would probably be more intimately involved in many such issues than local residents who do not have business interests in the town. Having failed to address this distinct possibility, the letter is wholly unconvincing.

Secondly, the situations between Oak City and Elm City may not similar in all aspects and such fact lends no support to the recommendation. It is entirely possible that these business people have no connection with Elm City whatsoever or that these business people have been members of Elm City’s Civic Club for longer than ten years. The arguer must eliminate these possibilities in order to rely justifiably on this evidence for his or her recommendation.

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy in assuming that restricting membership is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City. Actually, common sense informs us that such deed will undoubtedly impair the friendship between residents and nonresidents. Make the nonresidents feel isolated even discriminated, thereby do harm rather than good to the societal harmony of Oak City.

Overall, the arguer fails to adequately support the recommendation that Oak City Civic Club membership be restricted to local residents. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide clear evidence that non-residents who work in Oak City do not understand local issues as well as residents do. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about why nonresident business people in Oak City have not joined Elm City’s Civic Club during the last ten years.