The following advice was given to a politician by his political consultant: "It is true that 200 apartment renters protested in the rain about the elimination of rent control regulation. However, there are 20,000 renters in the entire city. 19,800 of them stayed home and did not protest. The group that did not protest is much larger and better represents the opinion of renters throughout the city that the elimination of rent control is not a problem. You should not let the small protest discourage you."
Describe how well reasoned you find this argument. In the discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the argument's conclusion. You may also address possible changes in the argument that would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
ANSWER
Political issues are always a prevalent among all people, whether rent control regulation should remain or should not has and will continue to have the attention of renters everywhere. Although the author claims that rent control regulation is not an issue for the politician because only 10% of renters protested is not based completely on facts, has questionable assumptions, and due to the little evidence given, we are unable to accept the truth in his argument.
Primarily, the assumption that due the attendance of only 200 people protested doesn't mean that the other renters in the area are not additionally concern. The inclement weather conditions, although not considered important to the author, can inconvenience any movement that people are attempting to make. There are also other indicators of the low attendance such as the time that the protest was held, were people in school or at work, and what about the physical ailments of other individuals that could not attend. The author's basis of his argument cannot solely be supported by attendance, and without support of his assumptions we cannot come to his conclusions.
In addition, the author gives insufficient evidence to support his conclusions about the protest. Merely basing the assumption on one act does not mean that eliminating rent controlled apartments is not a problem. This only takes in to consideration one act, where others might send in letters to the politician expressing their concern, and some sit in at town hall meeting to express their concerns. The lack of evidence that rent control is not an ongoing concern of others has rendered the statement unacceptable.
Although the author has left his assumptions in clear, and facts without evidence there are a few things that he could do to improve the overall merit to his argument. By further researching the additional protests and actions taken by the people he would be able to properly support that whether or not rent control is a problem. He could also base the assumptions on solid ground by comparing opinions of renters in other matters such as surveying, town hall meetings, or a pole vote.
Describe how well reasoned you find this argument. In the discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the argument's conclusion. You may also address possible changes in the argument that would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
ANSWER
Political issues are always a prevalent among all people, whether rent control regulation should remain or should not has and will continue to have the attention of renters everywhere. Although the author claims that rent control regulation is not an issue for the politician because only 10% of renters protested is not based completely on facts, has questionable assumptions, and due to the little evidence given, we are unable to accept the truth in his argument.
Primarily, the assumption that due the attendance of only 200 people protested doesn't mean that the other renters in the area are not additionally concern. The inclement weather conditions, although not considered important to the author, can inconvenience any movement that people are attempting to make. There are also other indicators of the low attendance such as the time that the protest was held, were people in school or at work, and what about the physical ailments of other individuals that could not attend. The author's basis of his argument cannot solely be supported by attendance, and without support of his assumptions we cannot come to his conclusions.
In addition, the author gives insufficient evidence to support his conclusions about the protest. Merely basing the assumption on one act does not mean that eliminating rent controlled apartments is not a problem. This only takes in to consideration one act, where others might send in letters to the politician expressing their concern, and some sit in at town hall meeting to express their concerns. The lack of evidence that rent control is not an ongoing concern of others has rendered the statement unacceptable.
Although the author has left his assumptions in clear, and facts without evidence there are a few things that he could do to improve the overall merit to his argument. By further researching the additional protests and actions taken by the people he would be able to properly support that whether or not rent control is a problem. He could also base the assumptions on solid ground by comparing opinions of renters in other matters such as surveying, town hall meetings, or a pole vote.
