Good morning,
here comes another essay. I hope to get some helpful and constructive critique. I'd appreciate it.
Best regards!
The following appeared as part of a business plan by the Capital Idea investment firm:
"In recent years the worldwide demand for fish has grown, and improvements in fishing technology have made larger catches and thus increased supply possible: for example, last year's tuna catch was 9 percent greater than the previous year's. To capitalize on these trends, we should therefore invest in the new tartfish processing plant on Tartfish Island, where increasing revenues from tourism indicate a strong local economy."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that in order to capitalize on new trends regarding the fis industry, investment in tartfish processing plants on Tartfish Island shoudl be made, where high tourism revenues indicate a strong local economy.
Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, his argument cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
He states that better fishing technology have made larger catches and increased supply of fish possible. He omits to point what the better fishing technology consists of and how it leads to a larger amount of catches. Moreover the author doesn't state specific numbers on the increased supply possible.
He also says that last year's tuna catch was 9 % higher than the previous year. Without any numbers that would clarify the increase in tuna catch, this premise is not of help.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
At first, he starts out from the assumption that general increase in fish catches and supply leads to higher revenues in the fish industry. While the amount of tuna and trouts, for instance, could be increased, the catch of tartfish could be the same or with a different fishing technology even lower than before.
Secondly, he assumes that higher tourism revenues lead to higher revenues in the fish industry. It may be true that through tourism the Tartfish Island may have a strong economy but a strong economy doesn't necessarily lead to higher revenues in the fish business. For instance the people profitting from the tourism business on the island could use their money on the real estate market or invest all in the toursim branch. This way the fish economy wouldn't profit from the strong economy.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between the increase of catches and supply of any fish and the increase of revenues in the fish industry, as well as the link of a strong economy on Tratfish Island by tourism and higher revenues in the tartfish industry
While the author has included various drawbacks into his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that his entire argument is without base.
He could strengthen his argument by naming specific numbers of the increase in catches and fish supply, defining what the new technology consists of and stating some numbers of the increase of tuna catches.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds in the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
here comes another essay. I hope to get some helpful and constructive critique. I'd appreciate it.
Best regards!
The following appeared as part of a business plan by the Capital Idea investment firm:
"In recent years the worldwide demand for fish has grown, and improvements in fishing technology have made larger catches and thus increased supply possible: for example, last year's tuna catch was 9 percent greater than the previous year's. To capitalize on these trends, we should therefore invest in the new tartfish processing plant on Tartfish Island, where increasing revenues from tourism indicate a strong local economy."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that in order to capitalize on new trends regarding the fis industry, investment in tartfish processing plants on Tartfish Island shoudl be made, where high tourism revenues indicate a strong local economy.
Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, his argument cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
He states that better fishing technology have made larger catches and increased supply of fish possible. He omits to point what the better fishing technology consists of and how it leads to a larger amount of catches. Moreover the author doesn't state specific numbers on the increased supply possible.
He also says that last year's tuna catch was 9 % higher than the previous year. Without any numbers that would clarify the increase in tuna catch, this premise is not of help.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
At first, he starts out from the assumption that general increase in fish catches and supply leads to higher revenues in the fish industry. While the amount of tuna and trouts, for instance, could be increased, the catch of tartfish could be the same or with a different fishing technology even lower than before.
Secondly, he assumes that higher tourism revenues lead to higher revenues in the fish industry. It may be true that through tourism the Tartfish Island may have a strong economy but a strong economy doesn't necessarily lead to higher revenues in the fish business. For instance the people profitting from the tourism business on the island could use their money on the real estate market or invest all in the toursim branch. This way the fish economy wouldn't profit from the strong economy.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between the increase of catches and supply of any fish and the increase of revenues in the fish industry, as well as the link of a strong economy on Tratfish Island by tourism and higher revenues in the tartfish industry
While the author has included various drawbacks into his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that his entire argument is without base.
He could strengthen his argument by naming specific numbers of the increase in catches and fish supply, defining what the new technology consists of and stating some numbers of the increase of tuna catches.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds in the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
