AWA Essay Review
[#permalink]
26 Dec 2019, 18:45
Hello everyone - hope I can get some comments/advice on my essay below. Cheers!
Essay Question:
The following appeared in a newspaper editorial during the holiday shopping season:
"Americans spend far too much of their time buying and consuming non-essential goods. Studies show that, on average Americans spend over a quarter of their leisure time shopping. As such, it is no secret why America is losing its competitive edge relative to other countries. Instead of spending their time productively, Americans are wasting time through frivolous consumption. In order to counteract this trend, Americans should spend more time focused on personal and communal development--by, for example, pursuing educational advancement or participating in volunteer opportunities."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
Your Response:
The argument presented by the newspaper editorial has some validity in theory, however it lacks kay information that would assist in identifying if the reasoning is truly valid. Their stance is that Americans should spend more time focused on personal and communal development, such as pursuing educational advancement or participating in volunteer opportunities, in order to regain its competitive edge relative to other countries. Additionally, they believe that Americans are wasting their time buying and consuming non-essential goods, and by doing so are ultimately contributing to the decrease in the country’s productivity. There are a few key assumptions that the editorial is making in the argument that require additional information in order to be valid. Without this additional information, this argument rests solely on assumptions and not on facts.
The first key flaw with this case is that the newspaper editorial did not clearly define the basis of the competitive edge or advantage America is losing in relative to other countries. Without a clear definition of this premise, this situation may breed a lot of assumptions that may be considered faulty. Thus, in order to fully understand this reasoning, a proper definition is required in terms of what “competitive advantage” really is pertaining to. Some questions that may be able to address this concern are the following: Is America losing competitive advantage in terms of economic advantage? How is America’s economy doing vs. other countries Y-O-Y? Is America losing traction in terms of the number of volunteers being sent to developing countries? Once these questions are answered, the whole editorial will be more clear in terms of the message it may want to get across.
The second key flaw with this argument is the idea that there is a correlation between citizens spending a portion of leisure time shopping and a country losing productivity. The argument heavily implies that the current phenomenon of Americans spending over a quarter of their leisure time on average shopping is the reason for America’s decline in competitive advantage. Without any factual evidence to back this claim up, it cannot be taken as a fact. There are many reasons as to why America may be losing competitive edge or advantage. These could include more competition in the marketplace (i.e. more countries offering the same product, new players selling products at a lower price in order to gain momentum moving forward, a new trade agreement, as well as other factors and externalities). Some questions that are essential to ask are the following: Has there been a new trade agreement among other countries in terms of the exportation and importation of goods? Have Americans been spending over a quarter of their leisure time shopping just this year, or has this been an ongoing phenomenon over the past decade or so? Has America’s competitive advantage been on a steady decline the past few years, or was there just a substantial decrease over the past year? Is there a direct correlation between the time Americans spend shopping for non-essential goods with the decrease in productivity? If these questions can be answered, then we would be able to draw a better conclusion in terms of the relationship of time spent shopping for non-essential goods and the country’s productivity level.
The third key flaw with this plea is the idea that buying and consuming non-essential goods leads to a decrease in productivity and competitive advantage. Aside from the lack of evidence presented in line with this faulty claim, this argument is also heavily flawed as seen in the study of economics. The concept of disposable income is seen in the phenomenon present above, wherein Americans spend a quarter of their time shopping for good they do not necessarily need. This means that they have extra money to spend, which can possibly indicate that these Americans are indeed productive (i.e. making more money than needed), and that potentially - the economy is also hitting strides. Furthermore, when more consumers choose to buy products, this ultimately helps the country’s economy, as it could lead to greater revenue/s for firms, which also can contribute to more jobs available in the market. This cycle will eventually lead to more Americans being more productive with the availability of more jobs due to the booming economy. Thus, one can also ask the following questions in order to get a better understanding of the conclusion: How has America’s economy been in the past few years? How has the job market been, has there been a steady increase in terms of available jobs? How has unemployment been? Without answering these key questions, this argument will continue to rely on assumptions that have no clear basis, making it questionable.
In conclusion, even though this argument may initially make some logical sense on the surface, it still lacks a great deal of information that is integral to identifying if this is a valid argument. The reasoning presented in this editorial is lacking and relies on many assumptions, which may not be valid due to the vague premise, as well as other presumptions made in line with correlations mentioned in the editorial. The additional questions presented in the analysis above would allow the reader to gain a better understanding of certain facts that would understand the decline of America’s productivity.