262
In this memo the manager of a car manufacturing company argues that the company must
add a second plant in order to continue to thrive. To support this argument the manager points
out that its existing plant can only produce 40 million cars, but that according to company
projections 80 million people will want to buy the company’s cars. The manager claims that the
company can achieve its objective by operating the new plant on a part-time basis using
workers from the existing plant on a rotational basis. To support this claim the manager points
out that a certain airplane manufacturing company employed this strategy successfully five
years ago. The manager’s argument is problematic in several critical respects.
First of all, the manager assumes that no course of action other than the proposed one will
ensure that the company continues to thrive; yet the manager fails to substantiate this
assumption. Since demand is expected to be very high, perhaps the company can continue to
thrive simply by raising the price of its cars. For that matter, perhaps the company can continue
to thrive if it makes no changes at all. Without accounting for either possibility the manager
cannot convince me that building a second plant is necessary.
Secondly, even if building a second plant is necessary for the company to continue to thrive,
in itself this course of action might not suffice. After all, how can the manager reasonably
expect that a second plant will produce as many cars as the existing one if it operates on only
a part-time basis? And if the new plant borrows labor from the existing plant then production at
the existing plant might decline. Thus unless the manager can convince me that the new plant
will be far more efficient than the current plant I do not see any way that operating a new plant
on a part-time basis can double the company’s production.
Finally, the mere fact that one certain airplane manufacturer adopted a similar plan with
some success is scant evidence that this car company will succeed ifit follows the manager’s
plan. The memo provides no information about how many airplanes the airplane manufacturer
produced. Nor does the memo identify what constituted "success" for the airplane
manufacturer. Perhaps that company considered itself successful by producing only an
additional 10% more airplanes, or by merely managing to avoid bankruptcy. In short, as it
stands the anecdotal evidence about the airplane company is far too vague to lend meaningful
support to the manager’s argument.
In sum, the manager’s plan seems ill-conceived. To strengthen the argument that the
company must add a second plant to continue to thrive, the manager must at the very least
convince me that the company has no alternative means of achieving this objective. The
manager should also provide evidence that operating a new plant on only a part-time basis
would suffice to double production--perhaps by showing that the new plant would employ
newer, more efficient equipment than the existing plant. To better assess the argument it would
be useful to know what constituted "success" for the airplane manufacturer and, more
specifically, the percentage by which that company increased production as a result of adding
a second plant.Argument 111
The following appeared as an editorial in a local newspaper.
"In order to attract visitors to Central Plaza downtown and to return the plaza to its former glory,
263
the city should prohibit skateboarding there and instead allow skateboarders to use an area in
Monroe Park. At Central Plaza, skateboard users are about the only people one sees now, and
litter and defaced property have made the plaza unattractive. In a recent survey of downtown
merchants, the majority supported a prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza. Clearly,
banning skateboarding in Central Plaza will make the area a place where people can
congregate for fun or for relaxation."
This editorial concludes that the city should ban skateboarding from its downtown Central
Plaza in order to attract visitors to that area, to return the area to its "former glory," and to make
it "a place where people can congregate for fun and relaxation." To justify this conclusion the
editorial points out that skateboarders are nearly the only people one sees anymore at Central
Plaza, and that the Plaza is littered and its property defaced. The editorial also points out that
the majority of downtown merchants support the skate boarding ban. This argument is flawed
in several critical respects.
First, the editorial’s author falsely assumes that a ban on skateboarding is both necessary
and sufficient to achieve the three stated objectives. Perhaps the city can achieve those
objectives by other means as well--for example, by creating a new mall that incorporates an
attractive new skateboard park. Even if banning skateboarders altogether is necessary to meet
the city’s goals, the author has not shown that this action by itself would suffice. Assuming that
the Plaza’s reputation is now tarnished, restoring that reputation and, in turn, enticing people
back to the Plaza might require additional measures--such as removing litter and graffiti,
promoting the Plaza to the public, or enticing popular restaurant or retail chains to the Plaza.
Secondly, the editorial assumes too hastily that the Plaza’s decline is attributable to the
skateboarders--rather than to some other phenomenon. Perhaps the Plaza’s primary appeal in
its glory days had to do with particular shops or eateries, which were eventually replaced by
less appealing ones. Or perhaps the crime rate in surrounding areas has risen dramatically, for
reasons unrelated to the skateboarders’ presence at the Plaza. Without ruling out these and
other alternative explanations for the Plaza’s decline, the editorial’s author cannot convince me
that a skateboard ban would reverse that decline.
Thirdly, the editorial’s author might be confusing cause with effect--by assuming that the
skateboarders caused the abandonment of the Plaza, rather than vice versa. It is entirely
possible that skateboarders did not frequent the Plaza until it was largely abandoned--and
because it had been abandoned. In fact this scenario makes good sense, since skateboarding
is most enjoyable where there are few pedestrians or motorists to get in the way.
Fourth, it is unreasonable to infer from the mere fact that most merchants favor the ban that
the ban would be effective in achieving the city’s objectives. Admittedly, perhaps these
merchants would be more likely to help dean up the Plaza area and promote their businesses
were the city to act in accordance with their preference. Yet lacking any supporting evidence
the author cannot convince me of this. Thus the survey amounts to scant evidence at best that
the proposed ban would carry the intended result.Finally, the author recommends a course of action that might actually defeat the city’s
objective of providing a fun and relaxing place for people to congregate. In my experience
skateboarding contributes to an atmosphere of fun and relaxation, for adults and children alike,
more so than many other types of ambiance. Without considering that continuing to allow
264
skateboarding--or even encouraging this activity--might achieve the city’s goal more effectively
than banning the activity, the author cannot convincingly conclude that the ban would be in the
city’s best interests.
In sum, the argument is a specious one. To strengthen it, the editorial’s author must provide
dear evidence that skateboarding, and not some other factor, is responsible for the conditions
marking the Plaza’s decline. The author must also convince me that no alternative means of
restoring the Plaza are available to the city, and that the proposed ban by itself would suffice to
attract tourists and restore the Plaza to its former glory. Finally, to better assess the argument it
would be useful to know the circumstances under which the downtown merchants would be
willing to help the city achieve its objectives.
Argument 112
The following appeared in a newsletter from a political organization.
"In order to promote economic growth in the city, city residents should vote ’yes’ on the state
government’s proposal to build a new expressway linking the outlying suburbs directly to the
city center. A direct link to the city center will enable downtown businesses to receive deliveries
more frequently, so that downtown retailers will no longer run out of stock and city
manufacturers will not be affected by shortages of materials. Booming businesses will attract
qualified workers from all over the state, workers who will be able to take advantage of the new
expressway to commute to work in our city. In addition to these advantages, hundreds of
workers will be employed to build the expressway, further stimulating the local economy!"
In this newsletter the author concludes that, in order to promote the economic health of the
city’s downtown area, voters should approve the construction of an expressway linking
downtown to outlying suburbs. To support this conclusion the author claims that the
expressway would alleviate shortages of stock and materials among downtown businesses
and manufacturers, and would attract workers from elsewhere in the state. However, the
argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing.
The first problem with the argument involves the author’s dairn that the expressway would
help prevent downtown merchants and manufacturers from experiencing shortages in stock
and materials. This claim depends on three assumptions. One assumption is that such a
problem exists in the first place. A second assumption is that the absence of an expressway is
the cause of such shortages; yet common sense tells me that the availability of these
commodities is probably the primary such factor. A third assumption is that stock and materials
would be delivered primarily via the expressway. Yet it is entirely possible that these
commodities are delivered directly to the downtown area by other means, such as rail or air
transport. Without substantiating these assumptions the author cannot justifiably conclude that
the expressway would help prevent shortages of stock and materials.