-
NailTheMonster
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:13 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
Please rate this AWA. I would really appreciate your time and effort.
The following appeared as a part of an advertisement for Adams, who is seeking reelection as governor.
"Re-elect Adams, and you will be voting for proven leadership in improving the state's economy. Over the past year alone, seventy percent of the state's workers have had increases in their wages, five thousand new jobs have been created, and six corporations have located their headquarters here. Most of the respondents in a recent poll said they believed that the economy is likely to continue to improve if Adams is reelected. Adams's opponent, Zebulon, would lead our state in the wrong direction, because Zebulon disagrees with many of Adams's economic policies."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
----
The argument claims that since Adam has improved state's economy in the past and since Zebulon (Adam's opponent) disagrees with many of Adams's economic policies, Zebulon would lead the state in the wrong direction, and Adam should be reelected as governor. However, the argument is not entirely logically convincing, since it omits some crucial assumptions.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that just because Zebulon disagrees with many of Adams's economic policies, Zebulon should not be voted for. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, Like Adam's policies, Zebulon's economic policies could also manifest the betterment of the economy and only differ in some less important issues. Moreover, Zebulon's economic policies could be even better than Adam's policies. Hence, the argument is invalid unless the argument provides additional evidence to validate this unstated assumption.
Secondly, the argument claims that because Adam has improved the state's economy in the past he will continue to do so. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not take into account that Adam leadership influence could have been decreasing in the past and would continue to decrease. To illustrate, a possible situation could be that the governor before Adam improved the economy much more than Adam improved. Additionally, it could be the case that Adam's first year as the governor saw majority of the improvement, which is boosted in the advertisement, and his subsequent years did not witness much improvement. Hence, the argument fails to convince readers that Adam will continue to prove his leadership in improving the state's economy.
Lastly, the argument did not compare Zebulon's plans with Adam's plans. Although, Zebulon disagrees with many of Adams's economic policies, Zebulon may have a solid reason to do so. The rational for Zebulon disagreement could have added as strong evidence in the argument.
In summary, the argument is flawed as the argument does not provide evidence that Zebulon disagreement with Adam is not good for the state economy. Had the author mentioned that Zebulon plans to revive economy are not at all valid, then the argument would have been much more convincing. The author could have also strengthened the argument by providing evidence that Adam's leadership and not any other factors improved the state's economy in the past few years. Without this Information, the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The following appeared as a part of an advertisement for Adams, who is seeking reelection as governor.
"Re-elect Adams, and you will be voting for proven leadership in improving the state's economy. Over the past year alone, seventy percent of the state's workers have had increases in their wages, five thousand new jobs have been created, and six corporations have located their headquarters here. Most of the respondents in a recent poll said they believed that the economy is likely to continue to improve if Adams is reelected. Adams's opponent, Zebulon, would lead our state in the wrong direction, because Zebulon disagrees with many of Adams's economic policies."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
----
The argument claims that since Adam has improved state's economy in the past and since Zebulon (Adam's opponent) disagrees with many of Adams's economic policies, Zebulon would lead the state in the wrong direction, and Adam should be reelected as governor. However, the argument is not entirely logically convincing, since it omits some crucial assumptions.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that just because Zebulon disagrees with many of Adams's economic policies, Zebulon should not be voted for. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, Like Adam's policies, Zebulon's economic policies could also manifest the betterment of the economy and only differ in some less important issues. Moreover, Zebulon's economic policies could be even better than Adam's policies. Hence, the argument is invalid unless the argument provides additional evidence to validate this unstated assumption.
Secondly, the argument claims that because Adam has improved the state's economy in the past he will continue to do so. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not take into account that Adam leadership influence could have been decreasing in the past and would continue to decrease. To illustrate, a possible situation could be that the governor before Adam improved the economy much more than Adam improved. Additionally, it could be the case that Adam's first year as the governor saw majority of the improvement, which is boosted in the advertisement, and his subsequent years did not witness much improvement. Hence, the argument fails to convince readers that Adam will continue to prove his leadership in improving the state's economy.
Lastly, the argument did not compare Zebulon's plans with Adam's plans. Although, Zebulon disagrees with many of Adams's economic policies, Zebulon may have a solid reason to do so. The rational for Zebulon disagreement could have added as strong evidence in the argument.
In summary, the argument is flawed as the argument does not provide evidence that Zebulon disagreement with Adam is not good for the state economy. Had the author mentioned that Zebulon plans to revive economy are not at all valid, then the argument would have been much more convincing. The author could have also strengthened the argument by providing evidence that Adam's leadership and not any other factors improved the state's economy in the past few years. Without this Information, the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate.
