eiancel wrote:
First, the argument readily assumes that just because Helios’s unemployment rate was lower than the national average,(1) Helios has an economy that maintains its stability. Yes, this is a commendable achievement, but this statement is still a stretch and not easy to support. (2) For example the employment rate for the city could have fallen because corporations could have closed down less productive businesses in times of the recession. Local business-owners also could have went out of business as well.(4) The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated how Helios was able to have an unemployment rate lower than the regional average by providing examples.
(1) the author didn't say that Helio maintained its stability. In fact, that author only mentioned the fact that the unemployment was low during recession and didn't clarify the reason. Maybe, workforce migrated Helio because of its poor situation, making the unemployment apparently low.
(2) you assumption contradicts the premise. the premise said that the unemployment lowered, while you assume that businesses are closed without resolving the dilemma of what the employees will do after they lose their jobs. (a logic explanation could be that when the big businesses shrank, the employees made their own small business so unemployment stayed low)
(3) another possible attack is to propose another scenario. For example: low unemployment may be bad for incoming businesses because if the unemployment is already too low, these businesses will suffer to find skilled employees to run the businesses.
(4) this part was good
eiancel wrote:
Second, the argument claims that Helios has been historically known to provide “its share” of manufacturing jobs. This again is a very weak claim as the argument uses vague and basic language with no real evidence supporting just how much manufacturing jobs Helios has provided. For instance, let’s say there the amount of manufacturing jobs in Helios’s region is at 15%. Helios provides 7% and another town or city provided the other 7% percent. Surely, it as provided a share, but not by a substantial amount, as both areas provide the same amount of manufacturing jobs. If the argument would have provided evidence that Helios employs many Warehouse Associates then the argument would be much more convincing.
This part is great.
another idea to attach here is to say that Helio was great "historically", but what about now????. Maybe the situation changed. so you can attack the author because he used outdated information.
eiancel wrote:
Finally, the argument concludes with how Helios is expanding by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technology. And yet again, there is no sound evidence showing why companies that focus on innovation should set up shop in Helios. There are countless other more successful cities that these companies can call their home. (1)Like, Sillicon Valley and San Fransisco. Without the support of strong evidence, one is left with the impression that this claim is farfetched wishful thinking.
This part is also very good.
(1) you can't use information that is too detailed. you can say that, in general, there are many other cities attracting innovation, and that the author failed to mention why Helio is special.
(2) another idea is that the author, at the beginning of the passage, was inviting all corporations, indefinitely, but at the end he mentioned R&D that is an interest for special type of corporations. The author's flaw is that not all companies would benefit from R&D incentives.
Much Better work this time
eiancel. I think you are on the right track.
close
27 Jun 2019, 17:12
