[big fish]-3月2日-Argument273-by sunny球

sunny球UID: 2693880

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: 410              DATE: 2010-3-2
In this argument, the arguer concludes that providing tax incentives and other financial inducements is the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate their economy and reduce the unemployment. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that two companies moved to Dillton because of the reducing corporate tax rate and other grants offered by Dillton. However, the argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.
  First, the argument overlooks the strong possibility that the incentives may not be the only factor that makes the two manufacturing companies move to Dillton. Other such factors might include the proper climate of the city, the abundant labor forces, or even the gigantic potential market unmatched by any other city. Without considering and ruling out these and other factors that might have served to the relocation of the two companies, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the incentives should be responsible for the companies' movement.
  Second, even if it is preferential treatment that motivates the two companies to move to Dillton, the arguer has not provided strong evidence to substantiate further assumption that Dillton has experienced prosperity and reduced unemployment due to the movement of the companies. Even though 300 people were hired by the company, the percentage of all the employed might be low; if so, it do no use to decrease the unemployment. What's more, without the comparison about the conditions of the economic and employment before and after the incentives, it is impossible to determine whether the incentives can effect positively on the economic development and decline the unemployment.
Finally, even if the assumptions above are valid, the argument is based on a false analogy. It is entirely possible that the similar incentives in Dillton would not suffice to ensure similar success in Beauville. Perhaps Beauville isn't as livable as Dillton and the residents here prefer comfortable living rather than hard works, or maybe the market of Beauville could not afford the relocation grants and favorable rates. For that matter, it's difficult to reach similar goal without considering the differences between the two cities.
   As it stands, the argument for the incentives offered by Beauville to promote economic development and abate unemployment is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to take into account the possible reasons why the companies moved to Dillton. To strength the argument, the arguer would have to provide more information about the economic conditions and employment before and after the policies.

beenusedUID: 2636942

In this argument, the arguer concludes that providing tax incentives and other financial inducements is the fastest way for Beauville to stimulate their economy and reduce the unemployment. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that two companies moved to Dillton because of the reducing corporate tax rate and other grants offered by Dillton. However, the argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.
  First, the argument overlooks the strong possibility that the incentives may not be the only factor that makes the two manufacturing companies move to Dillton. Other such factors might include the proper climate of the city, the abundant labor forces, or even the gigantic potential market unmatched by any other city. Without considering and ruling out these and other factors that might have served to the relocation of the two companies, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the incentives should be responsible for the companies' movement.
  Second, even if it is preferential treatment that motivates the two companies to move to Dillton, the arguer has not provided strong evidence to substantiate further assumption that Dillton has experienced prosperity and reduced unemployment due to the movement of the companies. Even though 300 people were hired by the company, the percentage of all the employed might be low; if so, it do no use to decrease the unemployment. What's more, without the comparison about the conditions of the economic and employment before and after the incentives, it is impossible to determine whether the incentives can effect positively on the economic development and decline the unemployment.
Finally, even if the assumptions above are valid, the argument is based on a false analogy. It is entirely possible that the similar incentives in Dillton would not suffice to ensure similar success in Beauville. Perhaps Beauville isn't as livable as Dillton and the residents here prefer comfortable living rather than hard works, or maybe the market of Beauville could not afford the relocation grants and favorable rates. For that matter, it's difficult to reach similar goal without considering the differences between the two cities.
   As it stands, the argument for the incentives offered by Beauville to promote economic development and abate unemployment is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to take into account the possible reasons why the companies moved to Dillton. To strength the argument, the arguer would have to provide more information about the economic conditions and employment before and after the policies.
有北美范文套路的影子，写的很不错～