The following editorial appeared in the Elm City paper.
"The construction last year of a shopping mall in downtown Oak City was a mistake. Since the mall has opened, a number of local businesses have closed, and the downtown area suffers from an acute parking shortage, and arrests for crime and vagrancy have increased in the nearby Oak City Park. Elm City should pay attention to the example of the Oak City mall and deny the application to build a shopping mall in Elm City."
In the preceding argument, the author claims that the residents of Oak city have not benefited from the construction of a shopping mall in downtown Oak city and that Oak city exercised poor judgment in allowing the mall to build. Though the claim may have some merit, the editorial provides a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the argument offers, we cannot conclude the argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's claim lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Among the problems cited by the author are the closure of local businesses, lack of parking in the downturn area, and increased trash and litter in a city park near the mall. Moreover, the author argues that profits derived from sales are not benefiting Oak City because the owner of the mall lives in t another city. The authors premises, the basis of his argument, lack any evidentiary and support his conclusion unacceptable.
The author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. In the first place, the author assumes the all is the cause of the various problems cited in the argument. The only evidence offered to support this claim is that the construction of the mall occurred before these problems manifested themselves. However, this evidence is insufficient to establish the claim in question. A chronological relationship is only one of the indicators of a causal relationship between the two events. The author weakens the argument by making several unsubstantiated assumptions and failing to establish link between the construction of the mall and the problems that occurred because of them.
In the second place, the author has focused only on negative effects the mall has had on the city. A more detailed analysis of the situation might reveal that the positive benefits for the far outweigh the problems on which the author focuses. For example, new jobs might have been created for the residents of Oak City, and tax revenues might have been increased for the city. Though the author makes several key assumptions in his argument, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical statement is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author hopes to order to change his readers' mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
"The construction last year of a shopping mall in downtown Oak City was a mistake. Since the mall has opened, a number of local businesses have closed, and the downtown area suffers from an acute parking shortage, and arrests for crime and vagrancy have increased in the nearby Oak City Park. Elm City should pay attention to the example of the Oak City mall and deny the application to build a shopping mall in Elm City."
In the preceding argument, the author claims that the residents of Oak city have not benefited from the construction of a shopping mall in downtown Oak city and that Oak city exercised poor judgment in allowing the mall to build. Though the claim may have some merit, the editorial provides a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the argument offers, we cannot conclude the argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's claim lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Among the problems cited by the author are the closure of local businesses, lack of parking in the downturn area, and increased trash and litter in a city park near the mall. Moreover, the author argues that profits derived from sales are not benefiting Oak City because the owner of the mall lives in t another city. The authors premises, the basis of his argument, lack any evidentiary and support his conclusion unacceptable.
The author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. In the first place, the author assumes the all is the cause of the various problems cited in the argument. The only evidence offered to support this claim is that the construction of the mall occurred before these problems manifested themselves. However, this evidence is insufficient to establish the claim in question. A chronological relationship is only one of the indicators of a causal relationship between the two events. The author weakens the argument by making several unsubstantiated assumptions and failing to establish link between the construction of the mall and the problems that occurred because of them.
In the second place, the author has focused only on negative effects the mall has had on the city. A more detailed analysis of the situation might reveal that the positive benefits for the far outweigh the problems on which the author focuses. For example, new jobs might have been created for the residents of Oak City, and tax revenues might have been increased for the city. Though the author makes several key assumptions in his argument, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical statement is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author hopes to order to change his readers' mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
