"The following advice was given to a politician by his political consultant: "It is true that 200 apartment renters protested in the rain about the elimination of rent control regulation. However, there are 20,000 renters in the entire city. 19,800 of them stayed home and did not protest. The group that did not protest is much larger and better represents the opinion of renters throughout the city that the elimination of rent control is not a problem. You should not let the small protest discourage you."
The political consultant quoted above concludes that a protest by 1% of the population affected by a political measure indicates that general population does not contest that the measure. The author uses the number of protesters relative to the size of the affected population as a premise for the population's acceptance of the measure. The argument, however, relies on the erroneous assumptions that an individual's failure to protest indicates acceptance of the elimination of rent control, and that the portion of the population that did protest should be considered insignificant.
Most noticeably, the writer of the above argument fallaciously assumes that the group that did not protest represents the opinions of the renters throughout the city. The political consultant did not consider those individuals whom were unable to protest on that day, whether due to employment demands, child-sitting, or illness. Any such constituents may have been irate over the elimination of rent control, and may have even protested (in a manner of speaking) over the internet, but their indignation would not have been taken into account by the author of the above passage.
Further, the consultant assumes that a physical protest by 1% of the affected population is not significant enough to warrant discouragement on the part of the politician. If 1% of the renters in New York City, for example, were to take to the streets in protest on any given day, the resulting crowd would be so large that major streets would be shut down, and the event would certainly garner national media attention. The fact that the total population of renter's in the politician's constituency is not as large as that of a mega-city does not mean that proportionate response should be viewed any differently. In reality, most unpopular bills, such as the ban on alcohol on public beaches in San Diego County, did not result in any protests. It is therefore possible that the protest witnessed by the consultant quoted above represents an overwhelming rejection of the elimination of rent control, which should be a great cause of concern for the politician.
Furthermore, the above argument could be improved by taking into account the relative representation of a physical protester. The consultant should advise the politician, for example, that a single protester typically represents the opinions of 5 to 10 voters. Therefore, the politician could form a more meaningful interpretation of the general acceptance of his elimination of rent control.
The political consultant quoted above concludes that a protest by 1% of the population affected by a political measure indicates that general population does not contest that the measure. The author uses the number of protesters relative to the size of the affected population as a premise for the population's acceptance of the measure. The argument, however, relies on the erroneous assumptions that an individual's failure to protest indicates acceptance of the elimination of rent control, and that the portion of the population that did protest should be considered insignificant.
Most noticeably, the writer of the above argument fallaciously assumes that the group that did not protest represents the opinions of the renters throughout the city. The political consultant did not consider those individuals whom were unable to protest on that day, whether due to employment demands, child-sitting, or illness. Any such constituents may have been irate over the elimination of rent control, and may have even protested (in a manner of speaking) over the internet, but their indignation would not have been taken into account by the author of the above passage.
Further, the consultant assumes that a physical protest by 1% of the affected population is not significant enough to warrant discouragement on the part of the politician. If 1% of the renters in New York City, for example, were to take to the streets in protest on any given day, the resulting crowd would be so large that major streets would be shut down, and the event would certainly garner national media attention. The fact that the total population of renter's in the politician's constituency is not as large as that of a mega-city does not mean that proportionate response should be viewed any differently. In reality, most unpopular bills, such as the ban on alcohol on public beaches in San Diego County, did not result in any protests. It is therefore possible that the protest witnessed by the consultant quoted above represents an overwhelming rejection of the elimination of rent control, which should be a great cause of concern for the politician.
Furthermore, the above argument could be improved by taking into account the relative representation of a physical protester. The consultant should advise the politician, for example, that a single protester typically represents the opinions of 5 to 10 voters. Therefore, the politician could form a more meaningful interpretation of the general acceptance of his elimination of rent control.
