Argument:
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.
Response:
The author's conclusion that imposing a moratorium on further immigration inorder to protect the local economy is flawed. The author fails to show that there was a direct increase in immigrant workers during the same period the wages declined. The author also does not offer any supporting evidence that the majority immigrant workers consist of unskilled labor. It is also unclear how the economy is supposed to be protected by imposing a moratorium on further immigration.
Even though the author states that the average compensation of unskilled labor in the city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years, he fails to show that this was as a direct result of the inflow of immigrant workers. There is no mention of whether the inflow of immigrant workers has increased over the same period. If the inflow of immigrant workers has been constant or even declined over the same period, it could be argued that the decline in wages is caused by other factors.
The author also fails to mention the categories of immigrant workers coming into the local economy. This would be an important bit of information to know since the decline in wages mentioned is for unskilled workers. If the majority of immigrant workers coming in were mostly skilled immigrant workers, then the decline in wages could be as a result of other factors.
The conclusion drawn does not follow from the evidence provided. The conclusion, protect our local economy, is vague in that it does not specify what protecting the local economy entails. Does it mean preventing the decline of the average compensation of unskilled labor? If so, is that the only factor to consider inorder to protect the local economy?
In conclusion, the author's argument could be strengthened by showing a direct relationship between an increase in unskilled immigrant workers and a decline in the average compensation over the same period. The conclusion might also be stronger if it was more specific, for example, protecting unskilled workers compensation. Otherwise, the argumentas it stands is flawed.
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.
Response:
The author's conclusion that imposing a moratorium on further immigration inorder to protect the local economy is flawed. The author fails to show that there was a direct increase in immigrant workers during the same period the wages declined. The author also does not offer any supporting evidence that the majority immigrant workers consist of unskilled labor. It is also unclear how the economy is supposed to be protected by imposing a moratorium on further immigration.
Even though the author states that the average compensation of unskilled labor in the city has declined by nearly 10% over the past 5 years, he fails to show that this was as a direct result of the inflow of immigrant workers. There is no mention of whether the inflow of immigrant workers has increased over the same period. If the inflow of immigrant workers has been constant or even declined over the same period, it could be argued that the decline in wages is caused by other factors.
The author also fails to mention the categories of immigrant workers coming into the local economy. This would be an important bit of information to know since the decline in wages mentioned is for unskilled workers. If the majority of immigrant workers coming in were mostly skilled immigrant workers, then the decline in wages could be as a result of other factors.
The conclusion drawn does not follow from the evidence provided. The conclusion, protect our local economy, is vague in that it does not specify what protecting the local economy entails. Does it mean preventing the decline of the average compensation of unskilled labor? If so, is that the only factor to consider inorder to protect the local economy?
In conclusion, the author's argument could be strengthened by showing a direct relationship between an increase in unskilled immigrant workers and a decline in the average compensation over the same period. The conclusion might also be stronger if it was more specific, for example, protecting unskilled workers compensation. Otherwise, the argumentas it stands is flawed.
