I don't have the EXACT wording for the argument but here is the basics of it (sorry for that, the prompt wouldn't allow me to copy it):
Conclusion: Helios is a city where corporations should go seeing new business opportunities
Evidence: Even in the recession, Helios' unemployment rate is lower than the regional average
Evidence: Helios is the industrial center of the region and history has shown that Helios provides more than fair share of regions employment.
Evidence: Helios is attempting to expand economic base by attracting companies focused on R&D of innovative technologies.
The author in the passage above concludes that corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunites or a new location. Multiple pieces of evidence are provided by the author in order to support the conclusion. The first piece of evidence states that although there is a recession, Helio's unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. The second piece of evidence states that historically Helios has provided more than its share of manufacturing jobs in the region. The last piece shares the fact that Helios is expanding its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovation technologies.
The author relies on assumptions for each piece of evidence provided. The first is that the author's argument in total assumes there is a skilled workforce in Helios from which the corporations can hire. Second, the evidence regarding the unemployment rate in Helios assumes that the rate is an accurate indication of the economic environment in Helios. A third assumption is that the author assumes that history is a good indicator of Helios' economy in the future.
As stated above, the first assumption is that there is a skilled workforce in Helios. This assumption is the basis of the author's argument. If there is not a skilled workforce in Helios, then the new corporations may find it difficult to hire workers which can lead to the corporations leaving Helios. The author could have strengthened the argument by providing data regarding the profile of the types of workers in Helios. If the new corporations seek skilled workers, then Helios would be a good location if skilled workers exist there.
A second assumption is that the unemployment rate is accurate in Helios. The author does not mention the size of the labor force nor whether there are people who have stopped actively looking for work. There may be a large number of people unemployed who are not captured by the unemployment rate, assuming that the rate only accounts for people actively looking. The author could have made this piece of evidence stronger if information regarding current workforce dynamics in Helios was given.
A third assumption the author makes is that history is indicative of what the future will be in Helios. Questions that could be answered are whether current industry is staying in Helios or whether there are trends to suggest that the population in Helios is falling. If the trend is that industry is leaving Helios in the future, corporations may not only find it difficult to find employees, but also find it difficult to stay in business if not enough people are there to consume.
Discussed above are some of the assumptions that the author makes to arrive at the conclusion in the passage above. Without mention of the profile of the workforce in Helios, the author assumes the new corporations will be able to find the right employees. The author also relies on the accuracy of the unemployment rate without providing any context of the size of the labor force or information regarding unemployed people not actively searching for a job. In addition, the author assumes history is an indication of the future in Helios. If industry is staying in Helios and the population is steady or growing in the future history may be a good indicator of the future. However, the author fails to provide any information regarding current population trends. With more information for each of the pieces of evidence discussed above, the author could have made the argument stronger. More information would have left less doubt for readers evaluating the author's stance.
Conclusion: Helios is a city where corporations should go seeing new business opportunities
Evidence: Even in the recession, Helios' unemployment rate is lower than the regional average
Evidence: Helios is the industrial center of the region and history has shown that Helios provides more than fair share of regions employment.
Evidence: Helios is attempting to expand economic base by attracting companies focused on R&D of innovative technologies.
The author in the passage above concludes that corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunites or a new location. Multiple pieces of evidence are provided by the author in order to support the conclusion. The first piece of evidence states that although there is a recession, Helio's unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. The second piece of evidence states that historically Helios has provided more than its share of manufacturing jobs in the region. The last piece shares the fact that Helios is expanding its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovation technologies.
The author relies on assumptions for each piece of evidence provided. The first is that the author's argument in total assumes there is a skilled workforce in Helios from which the corporations can hire. Second, the evidence regarding the unemployment rate in Helios assumes that the rate is an accurate indication of the economic environment in Helios. A third assumption is that the author assumes that history is a good indicator of Helios' economy in the future.
As stated above, the first assumption is that there is a skilled workforce in Helios. This assumption is the basis of the author's argument. If there is not a skilled workforce in Helios, then the new corporations may find it difficult to hire workers which can lead to the corporations leaving Helios. The author could have strengthened the argument by providing data regarding the profile of the types of workers in Helios. If the new corporations seek skilled workers, then Helios would be a good location if skilled workers exist there.
A second assumption is that the unemployment rate is accurate in Helios. The author does not mention the size of the labor force nor whether there are people who have stopped actively looking for work. There may be a large number of people unemployed who are not captured by the unemployment rate, assuming that the rate only accounts for people actively looking. The author could have made this piece of evidence stronger if information regarding current workforce dynamics in Helios was given.
A third assumption the author makes is that history is indicative of what the future will be in Helios. Questions that could be answered are whether current industry is staying in Helios or whether there are trends to suggest that the population in Helios is falling. If the trend is that industry is leaving Helios in the future, corporations may not only find it difficult to find employees, but also find it difficult to stay in business if not enough people are there to consume.
Discussed above are some of the assumptions that the author makes to arrive at the conclusion in the passage above. Without mention of the profile of the workforce in Helios, the author assumes the new corporations will be able to find the right employees. The author also relies on the accuracy of the unemployment rate without providing any context of the size of the labor force or information regarding unemployed people not actively searching for a job. In addition, the author assumes history is an indication of the future in Helios. If industry is staying in Helios and the population is steady or growing in the future history may be a good indicator of the future. However, the author fails to provide any information regarding current population trends. With more information for each of the pieces of evidence discussed above, the author could have made the argument stronger. More information would have left less doubt for readers evaluating the author's stance.
