The following letter to the editor appeared in the Coastal Times:
It has become clear that President Leonard needs to be recalled. His approval rating is down below 50% and the unemployment rate is well above its historical average. While I agree with his handling of the recent international conflicts, we simply cannot afford such stagnant economic growth. We must recall President Leonard in order to put our neighbors back to work!
The argument claims that President Leonard must be recalled given: Leonard's approval rating, which is below 50%, unemployment rate that is above historical average, and stagnant economic growth. Thus, if President Leonard is indeed recalled the economic well-being of the citizens will be improved. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing.
Firstly, the argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated how exactly was the historical average calculated. Does the historical average include last 5 years, 10 years or 100years? Similarly, what geographical area does it entail? Is it regional, local or perhaps world historical average? What group of people does it include? Given such unfortunate formulation in the text, the information cannot be used for any reasonable analysis. The historical average used may be inappropriate for the comparison. For instance, consider evaluating past 10years of unemployment of age group 16-64 in Philippines with last 4 years of age group 29-35 in Ohio, USA. In addition, notice the vague language. To illustrate, consider the historical average of 5%, at the moment, the unemployment may be 10% or perhaps even 20% given the formulation "well above". The same can be said of the approval rating mentioned in the argument. The argument could be strengthen by providing examples of the past presidents, for meaningful comparison, and how does it relate to the stagnant economic growth, which seems to be the core of the issue.
For second, even if the flaws in the second paragraph were addressed, the argument would still reveal examples of poor reasoning and leap of faith. The argument attributes the high unemployment and stagnant economic growth to one person, the President. While it may be reasonable to put some blame on a single factor, it is unjustifiable to blame only one aspect without considering any alternatives. This is applicable even more so given that the President is not the only one responsible for the national economy. Furthermore, in many countries the powers of the President are rather symbolic than real powers; therefore, in such circumstances it is unjust to evaluate a person on the basis of a task the person has no power nor authority to perform. If we consider the set of which have the ability to affect national economy their powers are still in check by the legislative and judicial. Also, the argument fails to consider exogenous factors. If there is world economic crisis, rising unemployment over historic average globally, then recalling a President will not change this. In other words, the causation of the economic stagnation may be elsewhere.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case this is impossible since many critical factors are omitted while those that are stated are vague and imprecise. Therefore, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
It has become clear that President Leonard needs to be recalled. His approval rating is down below 50% and the unemployment rate is well above its historical average. While I agree with his handling of the recent international conflicts, we simply cannot afford such stagnant economic growth. We must recall President Leonard in order to put our neighbors back to work!
The argument claims that President Leonard must be recalled given: Leonard's approval rating, which is below 50%, unemployment rate that is above historical average, and stagnant economic growth. Thus, if President Leonard is indeed recalled the economic well-being of the citizens will be improved. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing.
Firstly, the argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated how exactly was the historical average calculated. Does the historical average include last 5 years, 10 years or 100years? Similarly, what geographical area does it entail? Is it regional, local or perhaps world historical average? What group of people does it include? Given such unfortunate formulation in the text, the information cannot be used for any reasonable analysis. The historical average used may be inappropriate for the comparison. For instance, consider evaluating past 10years of unemployment of age group 16-64 in Philippines with last 4 years of age group 29-35 in Ohio, USA. In addition, notice the vague language. To illustrate, consider the historical average of 5%, at the moment, the unemployment may be 10% or perhaps even 20% given the formulation "well above". The same can be said of the approval rating mentioned in the argument. The argument could be strengthen by providing examples of the past presidents, for meaningful comparison, and how does it relate to the stagnant economic growth, which seems to be the core of the issue.
For second, even if the flaws in the second paragraph were addressed, the argument would still reveal examples of poor reasoning and leap of faith. The argument attributes the high unemployment and stagnant economic growth to one person, the President. While it may be reasonable to put some blame on a single factor, it is unjustifiable to blame only one aspect without considering any alternatives. This is applicable even more so given that the President is not the only one responsible for the national economy. Furthermore, in many countries the powers of the President are rather symbolic than real powers; therefore, in such circumstances it is unjust to evaluate a person on the basis of a task the person has no power nor authority to perform. If we consider the set of which have the ability to affect national economy their powers are still in check by the legislative and judicial. Also, the argument fails to consider exogenous factors. If there is world economic crisis, rising unemployment over historic average globally, then recalling a President will not change this. In other words, the causation of the economic stagnation may be elsewhere.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case this is impossible since many critical factors are omitted while those that are stated are vague and imprecise. Therefore, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
