The following appeared in a newspaper editorial during the holiday shopping season:
"Americans spend far too much of their time buying and consuming non-essential goods. Studies show that, on average Americans spend over a quarter of their leisure time shopping. As such, it is no secret why America is losing its competitive edge relative to other countries. Instead of spending their time productively, Americans are wasting time through frivolous consumption. In order to counteract this trend, Americans should spend more time focused on personal and communal development--by, for example, pursuing educational advancement or participating in volunteer opportunities."
The argument claims that Americans are spending over a quarter of their time buying and consuming non-essential good and hence, America is losing its competitive edge relative to other countries. Stated in this way, the argument fails to take into account some factors, which make the argument less convincing.
The primary issue in author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. First, the argument assumes that A country might lose competetive edge over other countires by spending a quarter of time on buying and selling goods. This statement is a stretch. We cannot assume this and hence the author must have mentioned it specifically. There can also be some other factors, which makes the country lose its competetive edge. For example: People get refreshed by shopping and can be productive the rest of their day. This may lead to increase in productivity. Therefore, the argment could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated proper reasoning.
Second, the argument also relies on the idea that spending time in activities such as volunteering or educational advancement, leads to productivity. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between spending time on personal, communal development and increasing productivity. If the argument had provided evidence, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, we cannot say that spending a quarter of time means that people do not spend the rest of their time productively. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, in order to assess this argument, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. In this particular case, the author should have mentioned about the portion of time people ahould avoid spending on leisurely activities, so as to ensure a country doesn't lose competetive edge over other countries. Also, the argument should have provided a link between increase in productivity and spending time on communal, educational activities. So the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is hence inconvincing. However, it could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentions a proper reasoning for a country to lose its competetive edge relative to other countries.
"Americans spend far too much of their time buying and consuming non-essential goods. Studies show that, on average Americans spend over a quarter of their leisure time shopping. As such, it is no secret why America is losing its competitive edge relative to other countries. Instead of spending their time productively, Americans are wasting time through frivolous consumption. In order to counteract this trend, Americans should spend more time focused on personal and communal development--by, for example, pursuing educational advancement or participating in volunteer opportunities."
The argument claims that Americans are spending over a quarter of their time buying and consuming non-essential good and hence, America is losing its competitive edge relative to other countries. Stated in this way, the argument fails to take into account some factors, which make the argument less convincing.
The primary issue in author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. First, the argument assumes that A country might lose competetive edge over other countires by spending a quarter of time on buying and selling goods. This statement is a stretch. We cannot assume this and hence the author must have mentioned it specifically. There can also be some other factors, which makes the country lose its competetive edge. For example: People get refreshed by shopping and can be productive the rest of their day. This may lead to increase in productivity. Therefore, the argment could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated proper reasoning.
Second, the argument also relies on the idea that spending time in activities such as volunteering or educational advancement, leads to productivity. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between spending time on personal, communal development and increasing productivity. If the argument had provided evidence, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, we cannot say that spending a quarter of time means that people do not spend the rest of their time productively. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, in order to assess this argument, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. In this particular case, the author should have mentioned about the portion of time people ahould avoid spending on leisurely activities, so as to ensure a country doesn't lose competetive edge over other countries. Also, the argument should have provided a link between increase in productivity and spending time on communal, educational activities. So the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is hence inconvincing. However, it could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentions a proper reasoning for a country to lose its competetive edge relative to other countries.
