Sajjad1994Please rate my essay.
The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine devoted to regional life:
“Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in the recent recession, Helios’s unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region’s manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies.”
Essay:
The argument concludes that, corporations seeking new business opportunities or new locations should prefer the city of Helios. It reaches this conclusion, based on Helio’s lower unemployment rate than the average unemployment rate of its region. The argument further tries to strengthen its reasoning by claiming that, Helios is an industrial center and historically has provided more than its share of manufacturing jobs in the region and the city is attempting to attract companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion relies on assumptions for which no evidence has been provided. The argument is rather unconvincing, given the obvious flaws.
Firstly, the argument implies that, lower unemployment rate is the only deciding factor for any corporation, which is exploring new business avenues and new locations. This line of reasoning tries to establish an illogical assumption. There are several other factors which affect any corporation’s decision to venture into a new location or a market, such as market’s potential to generate desired revenues, close proximity of resources for producing goods and services, support of local government towards encouraging new businesses etc. Clearly, the argument does not considers these important parameters before drawing its conclusion.
Secondly, the argument makes an ambiguous analogy by comparing Helio’s unemployment rate with its region’s average rate of unemployment. Averages are not absolute figures and any comparison drawn between an absolute figure and an average is highly likley to be misleading. For instance, in Helios’s region, there could be some other city, where the unemployment rate could even be lower than that of Helios. Hence, if the argument had shared any comparative data in terms of real figures but not averages, it would have been much clearer to make an analysis on the same.
Last but not the least, the argument gives an illogical validation that a manufacturing hub like Helios is attempting to attract technology companies. This is again a weak and an unconvincing example, which does not bolsters the claim of the argument in any way. There is no evidence which states the correlation of how a technology company would benefit by setting up its operations in a manufacturing center as compared to any Information Technology hub. This clearly shows a wishful thinking of the author, by progressing from the premise to the conclusion without taking cognizance of real facts.
Thus, the argument has several glaring logical discrepencies. It started on a sound premise, but lacked necessary data and other imperative analysis to strenghten its premise. If the argument had drawn upon the absolute figures instead of averages and analysis as suggested above and thereby plugged in the holes in the reasoning, it would have been far sounder on the whole.