-
HarshVora3
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:47 pm
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument concludes that it is necessary to impose a moratorium on immigration into the city in order to protect the wages of the local community workers. The argument is based on the premises that discuss the increment in the inflow on immigrant workers in the community and the declining wages of unskilled labor in the city. Stated in this way, the argument fails to provide convincing evidences, and ignores important factors which are essential to evaluate the argument. Without appropriate reasoning, the argument is vague, uncompelling and incoherent.
Firstly, the argument tries to establish a correlation between the inflow of immigrant workers in the community and the decrease in the wages. However, the argument fails to provide enough reasoning to support this correlation. For example, the author does not make it clear how the inflow of immigrant workers affects the wages or what factors are associated which lead to a fall in the wages. The argument would have been a lot more pursuasive had the author explicitly mentioned the factors associated with the inflow of immigrant workers that lead to a fall in the wages. Without such convincing evidence, the argument is just a piece of rough information.
Moreover, the argument states that the average compensation of unskilled labor in the city has gone down by 10% in the past five years. The argument readily assumes that immigrant workers are taking up unskilled labor jobs in the city. However, this may not be the case. It is quite possible that the immigrant workers are not taking up unskilled labor jobs at all. Furthermore, one must understand that the argument is discussing the average compensation which may consist of a variety of unskilled labor. The decline of average compensation does not mean that compensation of each and every labor job has decreased.Additionally, the argument considers the decline over past five years only, whereas there is no information of the period of inflow of immigrant workers. Without any cogent information of the above factors, the argument seems just a wishful thinking rather than a well-developed claim.
Lastly, the argument suggests to impose a moratorium on further immigration in the city, but it lacks the explanation as to how such a moratorium can repair the situation. The lack of such an explanation makes the argument vulnerable to debate.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it fails to explain many important factors which are essential to evaluate the argument. The argument without proper reasoning is quite unconvincing, uncompelling and open to debate.
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument concludes that it is necessary to impose a moratorium on immigration into the city in order to protect the wages of the local community workers. The argument is based on the premises that discuss the increment in the inflow on immigrant workers in the community and the declining wages of unskilled labor in the city. Stated in this way, the argument fails to provide convincing evidences, and ignores important factors which are essential to evaluate the argument. Without appropriate reasoning, the argument is vague, uncompelling and incoherent.
Firstly, the argument tries to establish a correlation between the inflow of immigrant workers in the community and the decrease in the wages. However, the argument fails to provide enough reasoning to support this correlation. For example, the author does not make it clear how the inflow of immigrant workers affects the wages or what factors are associated which lead to a fall in the wages. The argument would have been a lot more pursuasive had the author explicitly mentioned the factors associated with the inflow of immigrant workers that lead to a fall in the wages. Without such convincing evidence, the argument is just a piece of rough information.
Moreover, the argument states that the average compensation of unskilled labor in the city has gone down by 10% in the past five years. The argument readily assumes that immigrant workers are taking up unskilled labor jobs in the city. However, this may not be the case. It is quite possible that the immigrant workers are not taking up unskilled labor jobs at all. Furthermore, one must understand that the argument is discussing the average compensation which may consist of a variety of unskilled labor. The decline of average compensation does not mean that compensation of each and every labor job has decreased.Additionally, the argument considers the decline over past five years only, whereas there is no information of the period of inflow of immigrant workers. Without any cogent information of the above factors, the argument seems just a wishful thinking rather than a well-developed claim.
Lastly, the argument suggests to impose a moratorium on further immigration in the city, but it lacks the explanation as to how such a moratorium can repair the situation. The lack of such an explanation makes the argument vulnerable to debate.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it fails to explain many important factors which are essential to evaluate the argument. The argument without proper reasoning is quite unconvincing, uncompelling and open to debate.
