Argument 14
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a citizen of the state
of Impecunia.
"Two years ago our neighboring state, Lucria, began a state lottery to supplement tax
revenues for education and public health. Today, Lucria spends more per pupil than we do,
and Lucria’s public health program treats far more people than our state’s program does. If we
were to establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, the profits could be used to improve our
educational system and public health program. The new lottery would doubtless be successful,
because a survey conducted in our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already
spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling."
In this editorial the author condudes that by establishing a lottery the state of Impecunia
could use the profits from it to improve the state’s education and public health programs. To
support this conclusion the author points out that the neighboring state of Lucria established a
lottery two years ago, and that today Lucria spends more per pupil and treats more people
153
through its health programs than Impecunia does. The editorial also cites a study showing that
the average Impecunia resident now spends $50 per year on gambling. In several respects,
however, the evidence lends little credible support for the argument.First of all, the fact that Lucria now spends more than Impecunia per pupil, in itself, lends no
support to the argument. Perhaps Lucria has always placed a high priority on education; or
perhaps Lucria has always had more funds than Impecunia to spend on its programs,
including education. Lacking dearer evidence that Lucria’s lottery successfully raised revenues
that were then used to increase the amount spent per pupil, the author cannot expect us to
take seriously the claim that by establishing a similar lottery Impecunia would improve its
education programs.
Similarly, the fact that Lucria’s health programs treat more people than Impecunia’s
programs lends no support to the argument. Perhaps Lucria’s population is greater than
Impecunia’s; or perhaps its residents are older, on average, than Impecunia’s residents, and
therefore require a greater measure of health care. Without considering and ruling out these
and other possible explanations for the distinction cited, the author cannot justifiably conclude
that Lucria’s lottery was responsible for improved health care in that state or that a similar
lottery in Impecunia would carry a similar result.
Moreover, the argument unfairly assumes that the lottery in Lucria has been profitable. The
author provides no evidence that this is the case. It is entirely possible that the money used for
education and health care in Lucria comes from sources other than the lottery. Without
accounting for this possibility, the author cannot justify the conclusion that a lottery in
Impecunia would be successful.
Finally, the fact that Impecunia’s residents spend $50 per capita on gambling each year
lends little support to the argument. Admittedly, this statistic amounts to some evidence of
interest among Impecunla’s residents in gambling, and therefore potential interest in a lottery.
However, this evidence in itself does not suffice to prove that the lottery will in fact be popular.
Perhaps Impecunia residents have no more discretionary income to participate in a lottery
after spending $50 on other forms of gambling. Or perhaps Impecunia residents typically travel
elsewhere to gamble as part of their vacations, and that they would not otherwise be interested
in gambling. In short, without more convincing evidence of both an ability and a willingness on
the part of Impecunia’s residents to participate in a lottery the author cannot convince me that
the lottery will be profitable.In conclusion, the editorial has not convinced me that a lottery would be profitable and would
serve to improve Impecunia’s education and health programs. To better evaluate the argument
I would need more information comparing Lucria’s level of health care and education
expenditures before and after the lottery was established. To strengthen the argument, the
author must provide dear evidence that Lucria’s lottery was profitable and that these profits
contributed to improved education and health care in Lucria. The author must also provide
clearer evidence of the willingness and ability of Impecunia residents to participate broadly in a
lottery.
Argument 15
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
154
"Walnut Grove’s town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the
contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste,
because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC’s fee
is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash
twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ---which, like ABC, currently has a
fleet of 20 trucks---has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80
percent of respondents to last year’s town survey agreed that they were ’satisfied’ with EZ’s
performance."
This letter recommends that Walnut Grove continue to contract with EZ Disposal, which has
provided trash-collection services to Walnut Grove for ten years, rather than switching to ABC
Waste. To justify this recommendation the letter’s author notes that even though ABC’s weekly
fee is $500 less than EZ’s, EZ collects twice per week whereas ABC would collect only once
per week. The author also points out that, although both companies have the same number of
trucks, EZ has ordered additional trucks. Finally, the author cites a recent survey in which 80%
of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with EZ’s service. I find this recommendation
specious on several grounds.