ARGUMENT225 - The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. "During her three years in office, Governor Riedeburg has shown herself to be a worthy leader. Since she took office, crime has decreased, the number of jobs created per year has doubled, and the number of people choosing to live in our state has increased. These trends are likely to continue if she is reelected. In addition, Ms. Riedeburg has promised to take steps to keep big companies here, thereby providing jobs for any new residents. Anyone who looks at Ms. Riedeburg's record can tell that she is the best-qualified candidate for governor." The speaker asserts that Riedeburg is the best-qualified candidate for governor because after she took office, crime decreased, more jobs are available, and more people wanted to live in the state. To continue the trends, people should vote her. I find this statement problematic. First, specific numbers are needed to prove she is worthy. The speaker claims that the crime has decreased. However, we have no idea about what the real number is. It could be quite few and cannot be seen as evidence showing she is capable of managing the state. Similarly, we need to know the number of people who choose to live in the state after Riedeburg was elected. Also, the speaker has to demonstrate how many job there was, and the number after doubling. Otherwise, we cannot affirm the validity of the record. Second, there might be some factors determining the changes in the state which were not mentioned by the speaker. If we look closely at the statement, we may doubt that crime has decreased because the police chooses not to propose the real information. Number of people may choose to live in the state because there are terrible disasters happening in other states, therefore it is actually refugees that move in. The kinds of job which have increased may be the blue-collar ones. The fact could be that the factories, alone with lower payment and more pollutions move in and businesses turn down. Instead of gaining the benefits, the state suffered. Third, Riedeburg has promised to keep big companies and providing jobs for the newcomers. I think the policy could bring harms to the state. We do not know what the big companies are, but they could heavily polluted the environment and replace the companies which are already existing there. In this way, the economy may be damaged because of the big companies. If that comes true, and she wants to provide the jobs for any new residents, then the local residents may loss their job and are forced to move out of the state. In sum, the statement is not as convincing as it stands. The speaker needs to provide more information and take more factors and possible effects into consideration. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.166.245.83