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.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and
the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions
underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can
also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would
make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The part of an article described above attempts to attract the corporations to Helios by providing – seemingly- lucrative opportunities. However, in an attempt to do this, the article fails to provide necessary information to evaluate the claim about why corporations should consider Helios as their next destination to do the business.
The article suggests the Helios’ lower employment rate as one of the reasons why corporations should consider moving to the city. However, it provides no information to substantiate such claim or provides no reasons why low employment rate is an opportunity for the corporations. For example, the opportunities for the corporations might be better in the cities that have suffered a drastic unemployment, as they will be able to target two opportunities at once: 1. The city may offer the corporations better incentives such as low taxation or subsidies to relocate. 2. Due to high unemployment, the corporations may gain access to the labor force at a lower cost in comparison with the city that have a low unemployment rate. In such situation, it would be more likely that the corporation would prefer relocating to the city that have high unemployment, rather than moving to Helios. Therefore, having proper information with regards to how low unemployment rate would benefit the corporations will help evaluate the seriousness of the claim made in the article.
Even if, for once, we assume that the low unemployment rate is a great opportunity for the corporations to move to Helios, the article still lacks to provide necessary information about how “historically provided more of its share of the manufacturing jobs” can attract corporations to do business in Helios or relocate there. For example, due to its strong standing as a manufacturing city in the region, the suburban cities to Helios may have started offering better incentives that make them more suitable for the new businesses due to cheap real estate costs, better tax incentives and a closer proximity to Helios. In such case, the entire argument falls apart. Therefore, had the argument provided more information about how the status quo of Helios in the region would be beneficial in comparison to the other cities in the region, it would help evaluate the argument better.
From the idea of low unemployment rate, to the manufacturing status quo in the region, and an opportunity for research and development companies, the argument provides no necessary details to substantiate the claim it sets out to prove. Hence, the argument is flawed and a proper revision with the necessary information included will help evaluate the argument better.