-
vaibhavgupta
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:18 pm
- Location: Delhi, India
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:9 members
Timed 24 minutes
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.
Immigration has been a widely debated topic with both sides having valid points on both sides. On one hand Immigration leads to limited jobs for the locals, it also encourages globalism which helps in growth of multilateral relations between nations.
The argument presented looks at only the negative aspects of the immigration and quotes only a particular aspect of the growth of immigration. Not only does the author limit it to a single aspect, the author also fails to look into the other factors that could have caused such a decline.
The author's premises is on the basis that over the past 5 years the decline in average compensation of unskilled labor in the city is due to immigration. The author ignores various other factors that could actually cause such a decline. One of them could be that the industries have become more capital intensive leading to more mechanized and thus leading to a low demand for the unskilled labor. The author also ignores to take into consideration, if the economy of the city has been in a solid state or not. Since, if an economy faces recession, companies generally pat less compensation to the unskilled labor. There also could be an increase in amount of unskilled labor present in city locally, leading to a decrease in the compensation. The author's premises that immigration is highly narrow since it does not take into consideration, all the positive aspects of immigration.
The author assumes that a moratorium will be effective in protecting the economy. However, a moratorium could only be effective if there is only legal entry of immigration in the city. If there is a high degree of illegal immigration, moratorium will have no or limited effect. The author does not consider any negative effect of imposing a moratorium. The negative aspects could include trade sanctions against the city, which would be harmful for the economy of the city.
Although the argument has several weaknesses and does not look at the broad aspects of immigration, in order to convince the readers for imposing a moratorium, it could look into strengthening its premises first. Author needs to eliminate the other factors that could ultimately lead to a decline in average compensation for unskilled labor. Author could also look into factors such as limited supply of jobs for unskilled labor and high influx of foreign unskilled labor. Author could strengthen the premises by stressing the impact of moratorium on the immigration of workers.
Thus, the argument posed in the question faces sever issues and lacks clarity. The premises and the assumptions do not look into other factors for the decline in average compensation of unskilled labor in the city by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. In order to convince the reader he needs to enforce both of them and clearly eliminate other factors with reason.
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.
Immigration has been a widely debated topic with both sides having valid points on both sides. On one hand Immigration leads to limited jobs for the locals, it also encourages globalism which helps in growth of multilateral relations between nations.
The argument presented looks at only the negative aspects of the immigration and quotes only a particular aspect of the growth of immigration. Not only does the author limit it to a single aspect, the author also fails to look into the other factors that could have caused such a decline.
The author's premises is on the basis that over the past 5 years the decline in average compensation of unskilled labor in the city is due to immigration. The author ignores various other factors that could actually cause such a decline. One of them could be that the industries have become more capital intensive leading to more mechanized and thus leading to a low demand for the unskilled labor. The author also ignores to take into consideration, if the economy of the city has been in a solid state or not. Since, if an economy faces recession, companies generally pat less compensation to the unskilled labor. There also could be an increase in amount of unskilled labor present in city locally, leading to a decrease in the compensation. The author's premises that immigration is highly narrow since it does not take into consideration, all the positive aspects of immigration.
The author assumes that a moratorium will be effective in protecting the economy. However, a moratorium could only be effective if there is only legal entry of immigration in the city. If there is a high degree of illegal immigration, moratorium will have no or limited effect. The author does not consider any negative effect of imposing a moratorium. The negative aspects could include trade sanctions against the city, which would be harmful for the economy of the city.
Although the argument has several weaknesses and does not look at the broad aspects of immigration, in order to convince the readers for imposing a moratorium, it could look into strengthening its premises first. Author needs to eliminate the other factors that could ultimately lead to a decline in average compensation for unskilled labor. Author could also look into factors such as limited supply of jobs for unskilled labor and high influx of foreign unskilled labor. Author could strengthen the premises by stressing the impact of moratorium on the immigration of workers.
Thus, the argument posed in the question faces sever issues and lacks clarity. The premises and the assumptions do not look into other factors for the decline in average compensation of unskilled labor in the city by nearly 10% over the past 5 years. In order to convince the reader he needs to enforce both of them and clearly eliminate other factors with reason.
