A study suggests while the manufacturing industry contributes a whoppi

Please rate my response

The argument states that while the manufacturing industry contributes 40% of the total taxes collected by the national government, only 10% of total subsidies granted by the government go to the manufacturing industry in form of lower cost of raw materials, fuel etc. This is when the manufacturing industry is second to agriculture in terms of generating employment and is probably the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. Based on the above, the argument concludes that the subsidy structure is unfair and more must be done for passing the subsidies to the manufacturing industry. Stated this way the argument tries to manipulate facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation and also it fails to mention key factors on the basis of which it should be evaluated. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that total subsidies being provided to the manufacturing industry in form of lower cost of raw materials, fuel etc are less than the required amount. This statement is a stretch since the argument does not provide any statistics to explain this point. It may be the case that the wastage level in the manufacturing industry is very high and therefore the subsidies provide seem less than whereas are more than sufficient. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the reasons for the subsidies not being enough.

Second, the argument claims that the manufacturing industry is second only to agriculture in generating employment and, is probably the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. This is again a very weak argument and an unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between generating employment and being the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power. Even if the claim that the manufacturing industry is second in terms of employment generation is accepted, one can readily assume that the agriculture industry generates over 90% of the total employment in the country and the manufacturing industry generates a maximum of 5%, which is the second-highest. If the argument had provided evidence about the percentage of contribution towards total employment level, the argument could have been a lot stronger.

Finally, the argument has concluded that since the manufacturing industry is second to agriculture in terms of generating employment and is probably the main force behind establishing the nation as a major global economic power, the subsidy structure is unfair and more must be done for passing the subsidies to the manufacturing industry. This is an unconvincing conclusion because it has not provided any statistical data about the revenues, profits or employment percentage etc. Without convincing statistical data about the previously mentioned items, one is left with an impression that the claims are more of wishful thinking than substantial facts.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation or decision, it is essential to have full knowledge about the facts.