Without ruling out these and other alternative explanations for the three recent trends in
Ocean View, the mayor cannot reasonably infer based on those trends that Hopewell’s
economy would benefit by following Ocean View’s example.
Thirdly, even if the recent trends in Ocean View are attributable to the construction of the new
golf course and hotel there, the mayor assumes too hastily that the golf course and hotel will
continue to benefit that town’s overall economy. The mayor has not accounted for the
possibility that increased tourism will begin to drive residents away during tourist season, or
that new business development will result in the town’s losing its appeal as a place to visit or to
live. Unless the mayor can convince me that these scenarios are unlikely I cannot accept the
mayor’s recommendation that Hopewell follow Ocean View’s example.
Finally, the mayor’s argument rests on the unsubstantiated assumption that Hopewell and
Ocean View are sufficiently alike in ways that might affect the economic impact of a new golf
course and hotel. Hopewell might lack the sort of natural environment that would attract more
tourists and new businesses to the town--regardless of its new golf course and hotel. For that
matter, perhaps Hopewell already contains several resort hotels and golf courses that are not
utilized to their capacity. If so, building yet another golf course and hotel might amount to a
misallocation of the town’s resources--and actually harm the town’s overall economy.
In sum, the mayor’s recommendation is not well supported. To bolster it the mayor must
provide better evidence that Ocean View’s new golf course and hotel and not some other
phenomenon--has been responsible for boosting Ocean View’s economy during the last two
years. To better assess the recommendation I would need to know why Ocean View decided
165
to construct its new golf course and hotel in the first place--specifically, what events prior to
construction might have prompted that decision. I would also need to thoroughly compare
HopeweU with Ocean View--especially in terms of their appeal to tourists and businesses--to
determine whether the same course of action that appears to have boosted Ocean View’s
economy would also boost Hopewell’s economy.
Argument 24
The following appeared in a memo from the chairperson of the school board in the town of
Saluda.
"For the past five years, Mr. Charles Schade has been the music director at Steel City High
School, and during that time the school band from Steel City High has won three regional band
competitions. In addition, the quality of the music rehearsal facilities and musical instruments
at Steel City High has improved markedly over the past five years. Because of such successes
at Steel City High, the Saluda school board should hire Mr. Schade to plan and direct the
general music education programs for the entire Saluda school system."In this memo the chairperson of the Saluda school board recommends hiring Schade, Steel
City High’s music director for the past five years, to plan and direct the school district’s general
music-education programs. To support this recommendation the chairperson points out that
over the past five years Steel’s band has won three regional awards and that the school’s
facilities and instruments have improved markedly. However, close scrutiny of this evidence
reveals that it lends little support for the recommendation.
First of all, the chairperson unfairly assumes that the three band awards were attributable to
Schade’s abilities and efforts. Lacking evidence to confirm this assumption, it is entirely
possible that Schade was not the school’s band instructor when the band won these awards.
Or, perhaps the band won all three awards early in Schade’s tenure, and his predecessor is to
be credited. For that matter, perhaps it was the improved quality of the band’s musical
instruments that should be credited for the awards. After all, the chairperson provides no
evidence that Schade was actually responsible for this improvement. Without considering and
ruling out other possible reasons why the band won the awards the chairperson cannot
convince me of Schade’s abilities or, in mm, that he should be appointed to the district job.
Even if Schade is to be credited for the band’s awards, it is possible that the skills that
Schade possesses and which resulted in the band’s winning these awards are not the same
skills required for the district position. For example, perhaps Schade’s music-conducting ability
or his ability to motivate individual students was responsible for the band’s award winning
performances. If so, then the fact that Steel’s band won these awards would amount to scant
evidence at best that Schade would make an effective administrator for the district.
Next, the chairperson unfairly assumes that improvements in the school’s music facilities
and instruments are attributable to Schade’s efforts. If they are, then I would agree that Schade
might possess valuable administrative skills that would serve the district well. Yet, just because
these improvements occurred during Schade’s tenure it is unreasonable to assume that
Schade is to be credited for them. It is entirely possible that the improvements were the result
of another administrator’s efforts, or even the efforts of parents. Without showing dearly that
166
Schade, and not some other person, was responsible for the improvements, the chairperson
cannot convince me that Schade possesses the administrative abilities needed for the district
job.Finally, in recommending Schade for the job the chairperson fails to consider other possible
job candidates. Even if all the evidence shows that Schade is well-qualified, perhaps one or
more other individuals would be even more suitable for the job. Without addressing this
possibility the chairperson cannot convince me that the district should hire Schade.
In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To convince me that Schade would
be effective in the new job, the chairperson must provide dear evidence that the band’s awards
and especially the improvements cited are attributable to Schade’s abilities and efforts, and
that these abilities would translate directly to those required for the district position. Finally, to
better evaluate the argument I would need to compare Schade’s qualifications with those of
other possible job candidates.
Argument 25
The following appeared as part of a memo from the president of Automate, a company that
manufactures automobiles.
"It has come to my attention that Sparks, Inc., the manufacturing company that just moved into
our state, is advertising job openings at salaries that are twice as high as those paid to our
experienced assembly-line workers. Some of our employees have already left to work for
Sparks. In order to keep our best staff, we must pay them salaries equal to those Sparks pays
its employees. Otherwise we will continue to lose employees in the future, because Sparks
must staff the additional new plants that it plans to build in the state."
In this memo the president of Automate, an automobile manufacturer, concludes that to
retain its best employees Automate must offer them salaries equal to those that Sparks
automobile manufacturing pays its employees. To justify this conclusion the president points
out that Sparks has just moved into the state and is now advertising job openings with salaries
twice as high as those Automate pays its assembly-line workers, and that some Automate
employees have already defected to Sparks. As further support for the argument, the president
notes that Sparks plans to build additional plants in the state and will need to staff those plants.
I find the argument unconvincing on several grounds.
First, the memo does not indicate what kinds of jobs Sparks is now advertising--the ones for
which salaries are to be twice those paid to Automate’s assembly-line workers. Those jobs
might be top management positions or other jobs for which salaries are often significantly
higher than those for assembly-line work. If so, this fact would serve to refute the president’s
assumption that Sparks is paying higher s~lades than Automate for similar work.
Secondly, the president assumes that the reason why some Automate workers have
defected to Sparks is that Sparks has offered them higher salaries. Yet, the president fails to
provide evidence to substantiate this assumption. Lacking such evidence, those defectors
might have gone to work for Sparks because the city where Sparks is located is a preferable
place to live, or because Sparks offers other job incentives that Automate does not.
And, if the defectors accepted jobs at Sparks before Sparks began offering higher salaries,