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 conclusion of the argument states that, to protect our local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on immigration because inflow of the immigrant workers has put downward pressure on wages. Stated in this way the author fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The author makes several assumptions for which there is no clear support. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing and has many flaws.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that inflow of the immigrant workers is the only reason for reduction of wages over the past 5 years. This statement is a stretch is not substantiated in any way. This statement is co-relation vs causation flaw where two actions that are co-related as assumed to be in cause and effect relationship. For example, when genetically modified seeds with pesticides were introduced in US, high yields of crops were obtained. Farmers thought that high yield is the effect of using new type of seeds but it was later found that good amount of rainfall was the reason for high yields. The argument could have been more convincing if the argument clearly mentioned that status of other factors that could have affected the local economy and wages.

Secondly, the author mentioned that all the 10% reduction in compensation of workers is because of immigration of workers but this statement is not substantiated through any statistics. Without supporting evidence and relevant examples, one is left under the impression that the conclusion of argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

Finally, the argument claims to protect our local economy, it is essential to impose a moratorium on immigration. This again is a very weak statement as there author does not mention the relationship between immigration and protection of local economy. To illustrate, even when the immigration of workers was prohibited in China, numbers of immigrant workers continued to increase because most of the workers enter the country through illegal immigration. In fact, it is not clear how putting a moratorium would help to revive local economy. If the author mentioned relationship between immigration and protection of local economy with some supporting evidence, then the argument could have been much convincing.

In conclusion, because of the above mentioned reasons, the argument is weak and unconvincing. Argument would be able to hold waters if the author implemented some of the suggestions mentioned above. In order to assess the merits of a situation, it is necessary to have detailed information of all the relevant facts. Without supporting information, the argument is weak and has no legs to stand on.