[big fish]-3月2日-Argument273-by cooltozero

cooltozeroUID: 2705603

=============================================================================================================


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: 398         TIME: 01:00:00          DATE: 2010-3-2 20:28:52
====================================================================================================================


In this argument , the arguer concluds  that the fastest way to stimulate development of economy and significantly reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements for the companies that willing to come Beauville. To support this conclusion, the author cites the result of a ralative experiment in the city of Dillton which ostensibly got some achievments. However ,a few critical reasons make the conclusion not convicing.






Firstly , the experiment of Dillton does not clearly indicate that it's the policy that  drew the two manufacturing companies' attention to Dillton. As we know,within a period of time 18 months , which is considerably long , it is entirely natural that a few companies come in or go out . Possibly ,that two companies are more interested in other factors in Dillton,such as it natural resouces , the environment and so forth. Thus , before we are given reasons why the two manufacturing companies moved into Dillton, we can't decide whether the policy which provide many financial inducements for  the producers really work.






Secondly and more importantly , the experiment hardly conveyed us a message that economic development has been stimusated and unemployment  has been signifcantly reduced. In the scope of our knowledge , any new comers will add burden on the government . On one hand ,we reduce the corporate rax for them and provide them many financial support; on the other hand ,we will spent money to regulate them and a more complex city . If  the expenditure outstip what we take from them , we get a disastrous result rather  than a development of economic .Thereby ,witout a detaied data ,a blind benefical policy sometimes make the problem more worse . And, the author's coclusion if seriously undermined by this point .




Finally , in developing the economic  ,we shoud put more attention to a district's own characater. Sucess may not be simply copidy from one place to another .  The good policy in Dillton seems not necessarily work well in Beauvile unless the two districts share many common conditions.




In sum , this argument  is not persuasive as it stands .Before we accept it ,more informaiton is needed . They sould simply include following:  the two manufacturing companies is drawn by the policy in Dillton; a detailed data about our proceeds and expenditure and finally ,the important characters
the two place share.

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

In this argument , the arguer concluds  that the fastest way to stimulate development of economy and significantly reduce unemployment is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements for the companies that willing to come Beauville. To support this conclusion, the author cites the result of a ralative experiment in the city of Dillton which ostensibly got some achievments. However ,a few critical reasons make the conclusion not convicing.






Firstly , the experiment of Dillton does not clearly indicate that it's the policy that  drew the two manufacturing companies' attention to Dillton. As we know,within a period of time 18 months , which is considerably long , it is entirely natural that a few companies come in or go out . Possibly ,that two companies are more interested in other factors in Dillton,such as it natural resouces , the environment and so forth. Thus , before we are given reasons why the two manufacturing companies moved into Dillton, we can't decide whether the policy which provide many financial inducements for  the producers really work.






Secondly and more importantly , the experiment hardly conveyed us a message that economic development has been stimusated and unemployment  has been signifcantly reduced. In the scope of our knowledge , any new comers will add burden on the government . On one hand ,we reduce the corporate rax for them and provide them many financial support; on the other hand ,we will spent money to regulate them and a more complex city . If  the expenditure outstip what we take from them , we get a disastrous result rather  than a development of economic .Thereby ,witout a detaied data ,a blind benefical policy sometimes make the problem more worse . And, the author's coclusion if seriously undermined by this point .




Finally , in developing the economic  ,we shoud put more attention to a district's own characater. Sucess may not be simply copidy from one place to another .  The good policy in Dillton seems not necessarily work well in Beauvile unless the two districts share many common conditions.(A good point)




In sum , this argument  is not persuasive as it stands .Before we accept it ,more informaiton is needed . They sould simply include following:  the two manufacturing companies is drawn by the policy in Dillton; a detailed data about our proceeds and expenditure and finally ,the important characters
the two place share.

logically and still pay attention to the spelling

cooltozeroUID: 2705603

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: 398         TIME: 01:00:00          DATE: 2010-3-2 20:28:52
====================================================================================================================
改写


The author tend to give some useful suggestions for stimulating ecnomic development and reducing unemployment. However, the conclusion that the fastest way is to provide tax incentives and other financial inducements is not very convincing, for there are several facets are questionable in this argument. First, the autor unfairly assumes that now Dillton city is experiencing a prosperous economy. In addition, the argument simply attibute this prosperous economy, if any, to the tax incetives and fananical inducements in Dillton. The author also fails to take into account some differences between D city and B city.

By stating that within 18 moths there 2 manufacturing  companies moved into D city, and they empolyed a total of 300 people, the author implies that economy of D city is stimulated up. However, it might not be the case. As we know, within 18 moths, which is a considerable long period, it's natural that a few companies come in or go out. After all, the author provide no information about the situation previous years. We have no reason to believe that D city is experincing a well developing economy. In addtition, with out knowing data of the base amout of people unemployed in D city, statement that unemployment has significantly reduced is premature. Maybe this 300 people don't make sense at all. Moreover, this argument provide no information about any new unemployment during that 18 months. Thus,  it's doubtful that there is some improvement in the economy of D city.



Granted that economy of D city has been prosperous, whether this achivement are caused by the reduced tax  and finacial inducements is still questionable. There no evidence indicating that the two manufacturing companies are attracted by thes new policies. Other factors, such as pretty environment, low cost of labore force, ample resources and so on, also possibly lead to their location in D city. Without comprehesive ananysis of these factors which have significant impact in the process of deciding a company's place, we can't accept the implicit assumption that the tax incentives and finacial inducements are of much use.

Finally, even assuming that, those tax and finacial policies are effective, the author fails to consider possible differences between D city and B city, which may preventing these policies being successful. For example, it's possible that the main problem in B city is its lack of natural resources or the way of regulation rather than its tax and finacial policies. In this case, tax incentives and finacial inducement will be little use in stimulating the economy of this district. So, we can't guarantee that the same way of developing econmy could be simply copied from one place to another.

In sum, this argument is not reasonable as it stands. To support the conclusion, the author need more specific information. Maybe, other more effective ways to stimulate B city's economy could be come up with.