This argument recommends commissioning a famous architect known for futuristic and
experimental designs as the best means of providing new affordable housing for Claitown
University students. The argument’s line of reasoning is that the building will attract paying
tourists, new students, and donations from alumni all of which will help raise the funds
needed for the project. However, the argument is problematic in several critical respects.
First of all, a famous architect might charge a substantial fee for the project, in which case
the funds raised by charging tourists and through alumni donations might be offset to the point
of rendering the entire project unfeasible financially. The argument’s proponent must address
this issue before I can accept the argument’s conclusion.
Secondly, the argument relies on the tenuous assumption that tourists will be interested in
paying for tours of a building used for a purpose as mundane as student housing. It is entirely
possible that once the building is in use, tourists will not be willing to pay for tours. Besides,
198
perhaps the appeal of this architect’s buildings lies primarily in their exteriors, in which case
tourists would be able to appreciate the new building’s salient architectural features without
paying for a tour. In either case, the argument’s claim that the architect’s notoriety and the
building itself will generate the funds needed for its construction would be dubious at best.Thirdly, the argument fails to explain how the University will be able to pay for construction
when it will not begin to receive the revenue it needs until after construction is complete.
Unless the architect and contractors agree to be paid later, the argument’s proponent cannot
convince me that the recommended course of action will achieve the University’s goals.
Finally, the argument assumes without justification that a futuristic or experimental building
will attract alumni donations and students. While this might be true, it is also possible that
instead the University’s alumni and students stronger prefer the architectural status quo at
their campus; in fact, the appeal of the campus’ predominant architectural styles might be one
of the key attractions for students and alumni dollars. Thus I would need some evidence to
substantiate this assumption before I can accept the argument’s conclusion.
In sum, as it stands the argument is not well supported. To strengthen it, the argument’s
proponent must supply dear evidence--perhaps involving other college buildings designed by
famous architects--that tourists will be willing to pay for tours of the building once it is
completed and is in use as student housing. To better assess the argument I would need
detailed and realistic financial projections, accounting for the architect’s fees, to determine the
project’s financial feasibility. I would also need to know--perhaps by way of a reliable
survey--the extent to which students and alumni would be likely to support the project.
Argument 53
The following appeared in a business magazine.
"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods
requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods
concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This
conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the
recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing
symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The
chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other
kinds of canned foods."This magazine article concludes that the 8 million cans of tuna Promofoods recalled, due to
complaints about nausea and dizziness, do not after ail contain any chemicals that pose a
health risk. To support this conclusion the author cites the fact that five of eight chemicals
commonly causing these symptoms were not found in the recalled cans, while the other three
also occur naturally in other canned foods. For several reasons, this evidence lends little
credible support to the author’s conclusion.
To begin with, the author relies partly on the fact that, although three of the eight chemicals
most commonly blamed for nausea and dizziness appeared in Promofoods’ recalled tuna,
these chemicals also occur naturally in other canned foods. However, this fact alone lends no
support to the author’s conclusion, for two reasons. First, the author might be ignoring an
199
important distinction between "naturally occurring" chemicals and those not occurring naturally.
It is entirely possible that these three chemicals do not occur naturally in Promofoods’ tuna,
and that it is for this reason that the chemicals cause nausea and dizziness. Secondly, it is
entirely possible that even when they occur naturally these chemicals cause the same
symptoms. Unless the author rules out both possibilities, he cannot reliably conclude that the
recalled tuna would not cause these symptoms.