ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
"The inflow of immigrant workers into our community has put a downward pressure on wages. In fact, the average compensation of unskilled labor in our city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. Therefore, to protect our local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on further immigration."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
RESPONSE:
The argument states that to protect the local economy, a moratorium should be imposed on further immigration. This conclusion is based on the premises that the inflow of immigrant workers into the community has reduced wages and that average compensation of unskilled labor in the city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. Though the author's claim may well have some merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions and, based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot agree that this argument is valid.
First, author assumes that the downward pressure on wages is caused solely by inflow of immigrant workers into the community. Without any evidentiary support to back this assumption, the conclusion is open to debate as there might exist other causes of the downward pressure on wages. For instance, decreased wages maybe a result of inflation or even an economic recession. Without any clear statistic or evidence to prove indeed that the only cause of the decreased wages is the inflow of immigrant worker, we cannot accept this claim as true.
Second, the assumption that immigrants only contribute to unskilled labor is unsubstantiated.The evidence available in the argument only indicates that there has been an inflow in immigrant workers. This does not necessarily render them unskilled. It possible that there is an equal mix of skilled and unskilled immigrant workers per inflow or it is even possible that the mix of skilled and unskilled immigrant workers per inflow is skewed towards skilled workers as opposed to unskilled workers. If any of these is the case at hand, the author's conclusion is weakened.
Finally, the statement that to protect the local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on further immigration presents a poorly reasoned conclusion. This conclusion does not state how long the moratorium will last and the consequences thereof. For instance, if the immigrants are given a moratorium of say six months without pay, that might only encourage immigrants involvement in criminal activities to raise money as a means to survive,. This consequence might have worse effects on the economy than a 10% decrease in wages in five years.
While there are several key issues with the premises and conclusion, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The argument will be considerably strengthened if the author is able to demonstrate by providing clear evidence that the issues raised above can be addressed. Perhaps, the author may provide clear statistics showing the ratio of unskilled to skilled immigrants per inflow. Also, the author may want to provide data backing the assumption that the only cause of the downward pressure on wages is the inflow of immigrant workers into the community.
Conclusively, the argument is flawed as it stands and still open to debate if the issues highlighted are not addressed.
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
"The inflow of immigrant workers into our community has put a downward pressure on wages. In fact, the average compensation of unskilled labor in our city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. Therefore, to protect our local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on further immigration."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
RESPONSE:
The argument states that to protect the local economy, a moratorium should be imposed on further immigration. This conclusion is based on the premises that the inflow of immigrant workers into the community has reduced wages and that average compensation of unskilled labor in the city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. Though the author's claim may well have some merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions and, based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot agree that this argument is valid.
First, author assumes that the downward pressure on wages is caused solely by inflow of immigrant workers into the community. Without any evidentiary support to back this assumption, the conclusion is open to debate as there might exist other causes of the downward pressure on wages. For instance, decreased wages maybe a result of inflation or even an economic recession. Without any clear statistic or evidence to prove indeed that the only cause of the decreased wages is the inflow of immigrant worker, we cannot accept this claim as true.
Second, the assumption that immigrants only contribute to unskilled labor is unsubstantiated.The evidence available in the argument only indicates that there has been an inflow in immigrant workers. This does not necessarily render them unskilled. It possible that there is an equal mix of skilled and unskilled immigrant workers per inflow or it is even possible that the mix of skilled and unskilled immigrant workers per inflow is skewed towards skilled workers as opposed to unskilled workers. If any of these is the case at hand, the author's conclusion is weakened.
Finally, the statement that to protect the local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on further immigration presents a poorly reasoned conclusion. This conclusion does not state how long the moratorium will last and the consequences thereof. For instance, if the immigrants are given a moratorium of say six months without pay, that might only encourage immigrants involvement in criminal activities to raise money as a means to survive,. This consequence might have worse effects on the economy than a 10% decrease in wages in five years.
While there are several key issues with the premises and conclusion, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The argument will be considerably strengthened if the author is able to demonstrate by providing clear evidence that the issues raised above can be addressed. Perhaps, the author may provide clear statistics showing the ratio of unskilled to skilled immigrants per inflow. Also, the author may want to provide data backing the assumption that the only cause of the downward pressure on wages is the inflow of immigrant workers into the community.
Conclusively, the argument is flawed as it stands and still open to debate if the issues highlighted are not addressed.
