-
thegmatexperience
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:29 pm
Hello,
I have written another essay and would really appreciate an evaluation.
Thanks in advance.
The following appeared as part of an article in a weekly newsmagazine:
"The country of Oleum can best solve the problem of its balance of trade deficit by further increasing the tax on its major import, crude oil. After Oleum increased the tax on imported crude oil four months ago, consumption of gasoline declined by 20 percent. Therefore, by imposing a second and significantly higher tax increase next year, Oleum will dramatically decrease its balance of trade deficit."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that by imposing a second higher tax increase of 20 % on crude oil next year, Oleum's balance of trade deficit will decrease.
Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, his argument cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
Firstly, the author says that Oleum can solve its balance of trade deficit problems by increasing the tax on its major import, crude oil. But he doesn't explain that Oleum's problems consist of nor what amount the tax should be increased by nor what makes crude oil Oleum's major import.
Then, the author states that the consumption of crude oil declined by 20 percent after increasing the tax on imported crude oil. He omits to define the decline in absolut numbers and -- more important -- he omits to name the amount the tax was increased by.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
He starts out with the assumption that a tax increase on crude oil solves balance of trade by a decrease of the crude oil consumption. It isn't said that a decrease of the consumption of crude oil leads to a balance of trade deficit. The situation could also require a rise of consumed crude oil to balance the trade deficit. As per defitnition a balance can also be achieved by raising the other or other components that try to guarantee the balance.
Moreover he assumes that a second tax increase of 20% on crude oil will solve Oleum's balance of trade deficit. There is a missing link in this assumption. Another tax increase doesn't necessarily lead to a change of the consumption. Crude oil could be a key element of Oleum's industry so a second tax increase might not imply any changes like a decrease of crude oil consumption.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between a tax increase and a further decrease of consumption of crude oil, as well as the links between a second tax increase by 20% and the solution to the balance of trade deficit he assumes exist.
While the author has included various drawbacks into his argument's premises and assumption, that is not to say that his entire argument is without base.
He can strengthen his argument by naming specific numbers of the first tax increse, the decline of consumption, as well as a proper definition of the balance of trade deficit.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
I have written another essay and would really appreciate an evaluation.
Thanks in advance.
The following appeared as part of an article in a weekly newsmagazine:
"The country of Oleum can best solve the problem of its balance of trade deficit by further increasing the tax on its major import, crude oil. After Oleum increased the tax on imported crude oil four months ago, consumption of gasoline declined by 20 percent. Therefore, by imposing a second and significantly higher tax increase next year, Oleum will dramatically decrease its balance of trade deficit."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that by imposing a second higher tax increase of 20 % on crude oil next year, Oleum's balance of trade deficit will decrease.
Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, his argument cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
Firstly, the author says that Oleum can solve its balance of trade deficit problems by increasing the tax on its major import, crude oil. But he doesn't explain that Oleum's problems consist of nor what amount the tax should be increased by nor what makes crude oil Oleum's major import.
Then, the author states that the consumption of crude oil declined by 20 percent after increasing the tax on imported crude oil. He omits to define the decline in absolut numbers and -- more important -- he omits to name the amount the tax was increased by.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
He starts out with the assumption that a tax increase on crude oil solves balance of trade by a decrease of the crude oil consumption. It isn't said that a decrease of the consumption of crude oil leads to a balance of trade deficit. The situation could also require a rise of consumed crude oil to balance the trade deficit. As per defitnition a balance can also be achieved by raising the other or other components that try to guarantee the balance.
Moreover he assumes that a second tax increase of 20% on crude oil will solve Oleum's balance of trade deficit. There is a missing link in this assumption. Another tax increase doesn't necessarily lead to a change of the consumption. Crude oil could be a key element of Oleum's industry so a second tax increase might not imply any changes like a decrease of crude oil consumption.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between a tax increase and a further decrease of consumption of crude oil, as well as the links between a second tax increase by 20% and the solution to the balance of trade deficit he assumes exist.
While the author has included various drawbacks into his argument's premises and assumption, that is not to say that his entire argument is without base.
He can strengthen his argument by naming specific numbers of the first tax increse, the decline of consumption, as well as a proper definition of the balance of trade deficit.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
