The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"Too much emphasis is placed on the development of reading skills in elementary school. Many students who are discouraged by the lonely activity of reading turn away from schoolwork merely because they are poor readers. But books recorded on audiocassette tape provide an important alternative for students at this crucial stage in their education, one the school board should not reject merely because of the expense involved. After all, many studies attest to the value of allowing students to hear books read aloud; there is even evidence that students whose parents read to them are even more likely to become able readers. Thus, hearing books on tape can only make students more eager to read and to learn. Therefore, the school board should encourage schools to buy books on tape and to use them in elementary education."
In this argument, the writer claims that elementary schools place too much emphasis on the development of reading skills; therefore books on audiocassette should be provided as an alternative method of learning. The arguer attempts to substantiate the conclusion by citing studies that show the value of allowing students to hear books read aloud; including evidence that students whose parents read to them are even more likely to become better readers. This argument ultimately fails as it suffers from several critical fallacies.
First of all, the writer flatly states, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, that many students are discouraged by the "lonely" activity of reading, then continues on in the same sentence to state that students turn away from schoolwork solely because they are poor readers. Students often read to themselves or to the other students in a classroom situation - hardly a lonely activity. Additionally, this argument puts the effect before the cause - inviting the circular logic that students stop trying to learn to read because they are poor readers. Following this argument to its logical conclusion, because they are poor readers, they should not try to learn how to improve their reading. This absurd argument is analogous to saying that a new student should never start to learn in the first place, because he or she knows nothing.
Secondly, the writer cites as evidence in favor of the use of audiocassettes the idea that students whose parents read to them are even more likely to become proficient readers. It is at best doubtful that this provides proof that listening to someone read a book stimulates a young mind to learn to read better. It is far more likely that the child gains an interest in learning to read from the parents themselves, not the physical act of having something read to them. In this situation, the parent is showing the child his or her ability to read, which the child will naturally want to emulate. Furthermore, it is likely that a parent that spends time reading to a child is likely to be a much more encouraging parent, particularly when it comes to that child's education.
Thirdly, the writer fails to convince in his argument that hearing books on audiocassette makes a child more eager to read and to learn. The author cites many studies that show value in allowing students to hear books read aloud - he or she does not state that the studies show whether that value manifests itself as better reading skills or simply better listening skills, which seems more likely than any improvement in reading ability.
Finally, the author fails to take into consideration that merely listening to books on audiocassette fails to provide the visual stimulation necessary to develop higher level reading skills. It is more likely that hearing a book on audiocassette would discourage that student from ever reading that particular book on his or her own. Elementary schools are the main developing grounds for a student's reading abilities- there is no substitute for actively learning to actually see the writing and comprehend what it is trying to say. Listening skills can be developed through means other than by hearing books on audiocassette. Reading skills are an absolutely irreplaceable and fundamental part of an elementary student's education.
In conclusion, the writer's argument fails to address several weak areas that lead to a rejection of the overall conclusion that the school board should encourage schools to buy books on tape for use in elementary education. To strengthen the argument, direct cause and effect evidence should be set forth that shows better overall learning without any loss in the development of higher level reading skills for students.
A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per day, whereas North Americans eat virtually none. It turns out that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease-preventing properties. Thus, North Americans should consider eating soy on a regular basis as a way of preventing fatigue and depression.
In this argument, the arguer cites a study showing that North Americans suffer from an amazingly higher rate of chronic fatigue and chronic depression than people living in Asia. From an unknown source, the arguer states that Asians eat much more soy than North Americans, who eat almost none, and that soy contains disease-preventing properties. The arguer then concludes his or her argument by stating that North Americans should consider regularly eating soy as a means of battling fatigue and depression. This argument suffers from at least four critical fallacies.
For the sake of this argument, we will assume that the studies and the statistics about North Americans' and Asians' soy eating habits are correct, and that isoflavones have been found to have disease-fighting properties. Given that, there is still a problem with the arguer directly correlating the eating of soy with the prevention of disease and depression. First of all, simply because soy may have disease-preventing properties, that does not mean that it can therefore fight chronic fatigue and chronic depression. Fatigue and depression may not actually even be considered as "diseases", therefore even given the fact that soy has disease-fighting properties, it would have no effect on the "nondiseases" of fatigue and depression. Secondly, even assuming that fatigue and depression are diseases, they are not specifically mentioned as diseases that soy or isoflavones are able to prevent. Perhaps soy can help prevent osteoporosis (bone loss), mumps or even chicken pox, but that does not mean that it can specifically address the problems of chronic fatigue and chronic depression. These two critical weaknesses alone make the argument unconvincing.
Furthermore, the arguer's conclusion is based on the idea that diet alone can prevent fatigue and depression by comparing the diets of North Americans and Asians. It is highly unlikely that diet alone is responsible for the tremendous difference in the rates of fatigue and depression between the two populations. Other factors such as lifestyles, occupations, residence in city or rural areas and levels of stress may play a much bigger factor than diet. Additionally, the arguer states that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which supposedly have disease-preventing properties. What is not stated, however, is whether these isoflavones are contained in a form in soy that is usable by the human body. It is possible that the particular configuration of the phytochemicals found in soy products is not usable by the human body, thereby producing no beneficial effects by people eating more soy products. In and of themselves, isoflavones may prevent certain diseases, but perhaps those found in soy are of no benefit to humans. By failing to address these possibilities, the arguer has presented an unconvincing argument.
In summary, the argument fails due to four major flaws in logic. First, "disease-preventing" properties does not mean "fatigue and depression" preventing properties. Secondly, fatigue and depression may not even be considered as diseases. Thirdly, the arguer ignores the probability that diet alone is not the sole reason behind the increased rates of fatigue and depression for North Americans as opposed to Asians. Finally, isoflavones as found in soy may not produce the same beneficial effects as when it is found in other forms. To strengthen the argument and conclusion, the arguer should present evidence that directly links diet to fatigue and depression as well as evidence that shows that soy can specifically prevent chronic fatigue and chronic depression in North Americans.
In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.
This argument is based on two separate surveys of the citizens of Leeville, conducted by the University of Leeville. In the first survey, most respondents said that their preferred reading material was literary classics. A follow-up study by the same researchers found that mystery novels were the most frequently checked out books from each of the public libraries in Leeville. The arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study therefore misrepresented their own reading habits. This argument does not follow the facts and is therefore unconvincing due to several flaws in logic.
First of all, it is possible that none of the citizens who responded to the first survey were participants in the second survey. Statistically speaking, it is entirely possible that the first survey contained a greater majority of literary classics readers than are present in the general population of Leeville. The difference in the first study and the study of the books that were actually checked out from the library may purely be that the respondents had different interests in literature, therefore disallowing the arguer's conclusion that the first group misrepresented its preferred reading material.
Secondly, it is possible that the difference in the survey results could be attributed to the lack of availability of literary classics in the Leeville public libraries. Simply put, the library may have thousands of mystery novels available for checkout but very few literary classics in their collections. Leeville citizens may actually prefer to read literary classics - the public libraries simply may not have them for the citizens to check out and read. Another possibility is that the Leeville public libraries restrict the checkout of literary classics - perhaps treating the books as a type of "reference" material that must be read inside the library and cannot be checked out. Furthermore, it is possible that no matter how many literary classics the Leeville public libraries have, the citizens have read them all in the past, perhaps many times over, and they are therefore not checked out. These possibilities further weaken the argument that the first respondents misrepresented their reading habits.
Thirdly, literary classics are the type of book that people tend to buy for personal collections rather than checking them out of a library. It is a distinct possibility that the citizens of Leeville purchase literary classics to read and then keep in home libraries rather than checking them out of the library. Leeville citizens may prefer to read literary classics and therefore buy them for their own personal collections, thus checking other types of reading materials out of the library rather than buying them to own forever. The arguer's conclusion that the first set of respondents misrepresented their reading habits is critically weakened by this possibility.
Finally, this argument does not account for the possibility that the survey samples themselves were flawed. There is no indication given about how many people were surveyed, the demographics involved, or the specific locations involved. For example, richer people would tend not to visit public libraries but they are possibly more predisposed to reading literary classics. Similarly, people who visit public libraries may be more predisposed to reading mystery novels than literary classics. Without knowing the relationship between those first surveyed and those who visit the public libraries, it is not possible to draw a proper conclusion about the accuracy of the first group's statements.
In summary, the arguer fails to convince by jumping to a conclusion that fails to hold up to analysis. To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to find further research that eliminates these other possibilities that preclude the judgment that the first group of respondents misrepresented their reading habits.
As people grow older,Ġan enzyme known as PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. But now, researchers have found compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart. In tests, these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats. The use of these compounds should be extended to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating-and therefore serious problems in school performance. Science finally has a solution for problems neither parents nor teachers could solve.
In this argument, the arguer states that researchers have found compounds that keep an enzyme known as PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart, which are known to be involved in learning and memory. The arguer states that tests have shown that these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats, and that therefore, these compounds should be administered to students with poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. This argument is unconvincing because it contains several critical flaws in logic.
First of all, the arguer states that as people grow older, PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals that are involved in learning and memory. It is true that generally, as people get older, they tend to have more problems with learning and memory. However, there is no direct link mentioned between the breaking down of the neuropeptide chemicals and the loss of learning ability or memory. Additionally, the arguer mentions neuropeptide chemicals that are broken down by PEP. What the researchers have found is a compound that prevents neuropeptides from breaking apart. These are two different physical actions: the breaking down of neuropeptide chemicals as opposed to the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves. Furthermore, it is not stated which of these physical actions is involved with the loss of learning ability and memory. It is not explicitly stated that the breaking down of chemicals causes a loss in learning ability and memory, only that this happens as people grow older. It is also not expressly stated whether the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves causes memory loss or a lessened learning ability. Without showing a direct link between the effect of keeping the neuropeptides from breaking apart and a reduction in the loss of memory and learning ability, the efficacy of the compounds is called into question.
Secondly and most obviously, the compounds were only tested on rats. Rats may have a similar genetic structure to humans, but they are most certainly not the same as humans. There may be different causes for the learning and memory problems in rats as opposed to that of humans. The effect of the compounds on rats may also be very different from their effect on human beings. It is absurd in the extreme to advocate giving these compounds to students, even assuming that they would help the students with their studies, without conducting further studies assessing the compounds' overall effects on humans. The argument fails on this particular fact if for no other reason.
Additionally, the arguer begins his or her argument by stating that "as people grow older", PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. At the end of the argument, the arguer advocates extending the compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. Students are generally young, not older people. There is no evidence presented that shows what actually causes students to have a poor memory or difficulty in concentrating. Indeed, it is more likely that it is extracurricular activities or a lack of sleep that causes such problems in students, not a problem associated with aging. It is highly unlikely that even if the stated compounds could help prevent the memory loss and decreased learning ability associated with aging that it would have any benefits for students.
In summary, the arguer fails to convince with the argument as presented. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must show a direct link between the breaking apart of neuropeptides and loss of memory and learning ability. Additionally, he or she must show that students' poor memory and difficulty in concentrating is a result of the same process, and that the researcher's compounds would have as beneficial an effect on humans as it seems to have on rats.
The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.
In this argument, the council comes to the conclusion that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard and that therefore, there is no need to restrict the size of the garbage sites or the number of homes built near the site. To support this conclusion, the council cites a study of five garbage sites and three hundred people that showed only a small correlation between the closeness of the homes to the sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among those people living there. Additionally, the council came to this conclusion despite the fact that people living near the largest such site had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. This argument suffers from several critical weaknesses in logic and information presented.
First of all, the members of the "Trash-Site Safety Council" are not listed, which could make a big difference in the believability of the study. A truly independent council could produce results that could be considered much more reliable than one with members with possible conflicts of interest. However, if the council were made up mainly of people who have an interest in finding that there is no problem with the trash sites - homebuilders or city councilmen, for example - then the study would lack some credibility. Without knowing the backgrounds and priorities of the council members, the argument is greatly weakened.
Secondly, this was cited as a statewide study, but only five sites and three hundred people were studied. Although on average there was only a small statistical correlation shown between the nearness of the trash sites and the homes and people who lived in them, the margin of error could be quite large due to studying only a small sample of people that live near the trash sites in the state. It would be much more persuasive were a large majority of the homes and people near trash sites studied rather than merely a small percentage.
Furthermore, the study cites only unexplained rashes as a health-related problem with some statistical correlation. The presence or absence of other types of health problems is not mentioned in the study. It could be that there were other, perhaps not immediately noticeable health problems such as cancer affecting the people living near the sites. Additionally, the study appears to cover only one moment in time, or at least the duration of the study is not discussed. Perhaps there are long-term effects that cannot be discovered by a study conducted over a short period of time. This weakens the argument by leaving out information that could help to persuade the reader one way or another.
To add to the lack of credibility, the study does not discuss the relative size of the garbage sites or how close the homes and people were to the sites. There is really no data present to allow a proper decision to be made restricting the size of the sites or how close the homes could be located near the trash sites. At the very least, the fact that there is a slightly higher incidence of rashes in those living nearest the biggest trash sites indicates a need for further studies to prove or disprove the idea that trash sites of a certain size or location are health hazards.
In summary, the findings and conclusions of the Trash-Site Safety Council are based mainly on speculation and a small amount of indicative data. The disclosure of the council members motives, the study of a larger sample of the population and trash sites, and further information on other types of health problems and relative nearness of the homes and people to the trash sites would give a much better argument either for or against restrictions on the such sites.
The following appeared in the editorial section of a health and fitness magazine.
"In a study of the effects of exercise on longevity, medical researchers tracked 500 middle-aged men over a 20-year period. The subjects represented a variety of occupations in several different parts of the country and responded to an annual survey in which they were asked: How often and how strenuously do you exercise? Of those who responded, the men who reported that they engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise nearly every day lived longer than the men who reported that they exercised mildly only once or twice a week. Given the clear link that this study establishes between longevity and exercise, doctors should not recommend moderate exercise to their patients but should instead encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis."
It is natural to assume that exercise would have a positive effect on the length of life for middle-aged men given all of the medical literature that has been published in the past showing a positive correlation between exercise and longevity. In this particular argument, the writer puts forth a study purporting to track five hundred middle-aged men with different occupations in different parts of the country. The survey was apparently conducted on the basis of an annual survey asking how often and how strenuously these men exercised. The writer not only concludes that there is a clear link between longevity and exercise, but that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise, rather vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis to all their patients. This writer's argument fails to convince in a number of areas due to several lapses in logical thinking.
The first and most glaring error in logic lies in the fact that the results of only two types of exercising men are reported: those that exercise strenuously outdoors almost every day and those that only had mild exercise once or twice per week. There are no other results mentioned from the survey, such as the results of men who exercise vigorously indoors every day, or those that exercise moderately either indoors or outdoors three or four times per week. Additionally, it is likely that those men that are exercising outdoors vigorously and almost every day are already in better health than those men that only exercise mildly once or twice per week. Unhealthy men, either due to obesity, smoking or other health-related problems, would naturally be expected to exercise less and die sooner than those apparently healthy men who are physically able to exercise strenuously every day.
Furthermore, the writer indicates that the survey looked at men in different parts of the country with a variety of occupations. It would follow that men that can exercise vigorously outdoors almost every day must live in more favorable climates for such exercise. Milder weather that permits outdoor exercise would likely be healthier for any men rather than the harsher climates that may be present in other parts of the country. In addition, some occupations such as a policeman, firefighter or steelworker are naturally more dangerous than others, leading to a possibly reduced life span. The writer fails to take into account any possible disparity in longevity that may be caused by climatic differences where the men lived or due to their occupations, thus weakening the argument and its conclusion.
Finally, the argument suffers from a critical flaw in its conclusion when the writer states that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise for their patients, instead stating that they should only encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis. This conclusion is supported by absolutely no evidence in the argument - indeed moderate exercise is not even mentioned until the end of the editorial. Additionally, the argument fails to take into account that the study only addresses men, not women or children that are also doctors' patients. Furthermore, for some men, women or children, outdoor vigorous exercise on a daily basis might actually be detrimental to their health, such as those at risk for a heart attack or living in harsh climates.
In summary, the writer fails to show that doctors should recommend vigorous daily outdoor exercise rather than moderate exercise whether it is for men, women or children. To strengthen the argument, evidence should be presented that directly links strenuous outdoor exercise on a daily basis for men as well as all doctors' patients before any such recommendation should be adopted. This weak argument might actually cause more damage to patients' health than it would prevent.
The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper.
"Ever since the 1950's, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of Alta has steadily increased. This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television--programs that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.---should show less violence. Therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time."
The author of this editorial states that the rate of teenage crime in the country of Alta has increased along with the increase in violence shown on television, beginning with the 1950's when television was introduced in the average home. In addition, the author states that several national surveys have shown that young children watching violent television programs are more prone to violence than children who do not. The write also says that a survey indicated that ninety percent of parents responding said that prime-time programs should show less violence. Finally, the author comes to the conclusion that to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television watchers should demand a reduction in violence shown during prime time. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
Firstly, the writer equates the rate of increase in teenage crime in Alta to the increase in violence shown on television but gives no causal linkage other than the similar time periods. The author makes no distinction between types of crimes - whether they are violent or nonviolent crimes by teenagers. Furthermore, there are several possible alternative causes for the increase in teen crimes. For example, perhaps all types of crimes have increased for all ages, or maybe the police are now doing a better job of catching teenage criminals than they were before. Perhaps the reason for the increase is simply an increase in the overall population and that as a percentage of the population, teen crime is even less than it was before. Without ruling out these and other causes, the argument fails to convince by showing no causal linkage between television violence and teenage crime.
Secondly, the author mentions national studies that show that young children that watch violent programs show more violent behavior at home than children who do not watch such programs. This argument fails on two levels - one by assuming that children and teenagers are equally affected by television programs; and two by again assuming that there is some type of cause and effect relationship between television violence and teenage crime. Young children and teenagers are not the same and it should not be assumed that more violent behavior within the home leads to crimes outside as these children grow into teenagers.
Thirdly, the author offers a survey showing that ninety percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime time television programs should show less violence. The survey methods are not discussed - it is possible that the sample was improperly chosen or somehow predisposed to include parents that are very much opposed to television violence. Additionally, it is possible that such parents are far more vocal in their opinions than those who care little or not at all about prime time television violence, again skewing the results of the survey. Even assuming the veracity of the sample population surveyed, it is not logical to associate television violence with teen crime solely on that basis.
Finally, the author makes the gratuitous assumption that simply having television viewers demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence during prime time will lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta. Regardless of the flawed arguments previously discussed, simply demanding a change will have no effect whatsoever on teen crime. To strengthen his or her argument, the author needs to show some direct causal linkage between television violence and teen crime rather than making vague and unsupported comparisons purporting to show a link. There is no proof given either that television violence of any kind causes teenage crime or that a reduction in prime time violence will keep teenagers from breaking the law.
The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper
"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."
The author of this letter concludes in his or her argument that former Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus because he is at fault for damage that has occurred over a twenty-year time span to the River Bridge. The author also blames Mayor Durant for long-time traffic problems on the bridge, stating that Durant actually caused these problems twenty years before because he approved the construction of the bridge and did not approve a wider and better-designed bridge. The arguer may have a personal vendetta against Mayor Durant but the elements stated in the argument do not support such an accusation.
First of all, the author squarely places blame on Mayor Durant for the simple act of approving the construction of the bridge. There is no evidence presented that merely approving the building of the bridge had anything whatsoever to do with the damage that has occurred or the traffic problems on the bridge. It is entirely possible that Mr. Durant simply approved the idea of constructing the bridge and not the design of the bridge or the contractor that built it. Simply approving the construction of the bridge does not in and of itself cause damage to that bridge or any resulting traffic problems.
In addition, the arguer concludes that if Mayor Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge that there would be no damage or traffic problems, an argument for which there is no basis of proof offered. It is a well-known fact that bridges are subject to deterioration, particularly over a period of twenty years, no matter how well designed they may be. The author also fails to offer any supporting evidence to show that a more durable bridge with fewer traffic problems could have been built for approximately the same amount of public money. It seems likely that a wider bridge would have more damage problems rather than fewer, and probably would have cost more as well, whether public or private funds were used.
Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the River Bridge has deteriorated much more rapidly than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. This groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons for the discrepancy in the deterioration of the two bridges such as traffic loads, location and other environmental variables. It is possible that the Derby Bridge was much more protected from the elements and rarely used by heavy truck traffic, for example. The author gives no basis for a direct comparison between the two bridges other than his or her personal opinion.
Finally, the letter writer refers to the "negligence and wastefulness" of Mayor Durant. The only action cited by the author is the approval of the bridge in the first place, which proves neither neglect nor wasting of anything. The sentence itself contains a non sequitur - firstly discussing the severe winters of the past several years, and then accusing Mr. Durant of waste and neglect. This accusation is unwarranted as well as unsupported in the author's argument.
In summary, the author simply makes groundless accusations without providing any real support for his or her argument. To make the argument convincing, the author would have to provide evidence that Mayor Durant approved a faulty bridge design or an unqualified construction company that caused the bridge's damage and traffic problems. The author should have also provided supporting details that show that the damage to the bridge is out of the ordinary and directly caused by Mayor Durant's decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the author's point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.
The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine
"The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."
In this argument, the writer of the letter concludes that global pollution of water and air has caused a decline in the number of amphibians worldwide. To support his or her conclusion, the writer cites the results of two studies, seventy-five years apart, that purportedly show that the number of amphibians in one park in California, Yosemite National Park, have drastically declined. Additionally, the writer casts aside a given reason for the decline, stating that the introduction of trout to the park (who are known to eat amphibian eggs) does not explain the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians. This argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.
First of all, the argument is based on only two studies in one specific part of the world, Yosemite National Park in California. It is impossible to pinpoint a worldwide theory for the decline of amphibians based on any number of studies in only one specific location in the world - the specific varieties of amphibians, geographical conditions and other location specific variables prohibit such a sweeping generalization. One very specific location cannot be used as a model for all other locations, even within one particular country, let alone the entire world. The writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that links the Yosemite study with any purported effects anywhere else in the global environment.
Secondly, the two separate studies were done seventy-five years apart. There is no evidence that the two studies were conducted in a similar manner over the same duration of time or even over the same exact areas of Yosemite National Park, or that the exact same study methods were used. For example, perhaps the first study lasted over an entire year and was conducted by twenty-five experts in amphibious biology, resulting in the finding of seven species of amphibians in abundant numbers. By contrast, perhaps the second study was conducted over a period of one week by a lone high school student as a school science project. The writer offers no basis on which to compare the two studies, leaving it open as to whether the two are truly comparable in their breadth, scope and expertise.
Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters in 1920, but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof.
In summary, the writer fails to establish any causal relationship between global air and water pollution and the decline of amphibious life worldwide. The evidence presented is extremely weak at best and narrowly focuses on one tiny area of the globe, as well as putting forward as proof two studies about which almost nothing is known. For a stronger argument, the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating air and water pollution with not only the decline at Yosemite but also throughout other areas of the world.
The following is a memorandum from the director of personnel to the president of Get-Away Airlines.
"Since our mechanics are responsible for inspecting and maintaining our aircraft, Get-Away Airlines should pay to send them to the Quality-Care Seminar, a two-week seminar on proper maintenance procedures. I recommend this seminar because it is likely to be a wise investment, given that the automobile racing industry recently reported that the performance of its maintenance crews improved markedly after their crews had attended the seminar. These maintenance crews perform many of the same functions as do our mechanics, including refueling and repairing engines. The money we spend on sending our staff to the seminar will inevitably lead to improved maintenance and thus to greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits for our airline."
The director of personnel for Get - Away airlines has not made a very persuasive argument for sending the company's employees to the Quality - Care Seminar in his or her letter to the president of the company. Maybe the personnel director has not thoroughly investigated this particular seminar, as there are holes in the logic used to try to persuade the president to pay to send the mechanics to this two-week seminar.
First of all, the personnel director has stated that the seminar "is likely to be a wise investment" but then bases that assumption on a report from the automobile racing industry that their maintenance crews' performances had improved after attending the seminar. The letter does not state exactly what the seminar entails or whether it is specific to the proper maintenance procedures of any particular type of machine. It would be helpful had the personnel director explained in more detail the content of the Quality - Care seminar and whether it is aimed at automobiles or whether aircraft are included at all. The mechanics must learn something of value that will help them inspect and maintain the airline's fleet of aircraft. For the seminar to be a wise investment, the net productivity and income gains must outweigh the cost of the seminar. There is no evidence to show that this is the case.
Secondly, because the personnel director refers only to a report by the automobile racing industry, it seems probable that the seminar is specific to only that highly specialized industry. It is likely that there would be no clear correlation between the duties of the maintenance crews of an airline and the maintenance crews of an automobile built for racing. The fundamental purposes behind the two types of maintenance crews are clearly different. An automobile racing maintenance crew strives to create and maintain the fastest machine possible to enable its driver to cross the finish line in first place. An aircraft maintenance crew is devoted to ensuring that the airplane can fly safely in an efficient manner to transport people and cargo crew from one place to another. Speed is the main focus of the racecar industry while cost and safety are the main focuses of an airline.
Additionally, the personnel director suggests that the automotive racing industry maintenance crews perform many of the same functions as do the airline's mechanics, "including refueling and repairing engines". Although in name these functions are similar, they are in actuality performed in very different manners with different purposes in mind. For example, refueling in the racing industry is done as quickly as possible in order to get the racecar driver back on the track immediately. Certainly care is taken to ensure safety but again it is speed that is the number one priority. Refueling an airplane does not have to be done in the shortest time possible. The safety of passengers and cargo is the top priority. Similarly, the repairing of engines differs in that the faulty repair of a car engine may lead to losing the race, but the faulty repair of an airplane engine may result in an aircraft falling from the sky with disastrous consequences. Chances or shortcuts that might be taken with an automotive engine cannot be performed on an aircraft engine.
Finally, the personnel director refers to the inevitability of improved maintenance thus leading to greater customer satisfaction and therefore greater profits. This is a possible chain of events, certainly not an inevitable progression. In addition to the previously noted flaws in logic, merely spending money to send the staff to the seminar will not guarantee the stated "inevitable" benefits. It is possible that even if the seminar directly addresses aircraft maintenance and repair, the company's mechanics may already know everything that is presented, thus no improvement in maintenance will be gained. Maybe the mechanics will spend more time at the nightclubs in the area and not learn anything from the knowledge that is presented.
Furthermore, there is no direct correlation between improved maintenance and increased customer satisfaction, let alone an increase in profits. Aircraft maintenance is necessarily a "behind the scenes" activity that customers rarely notice, barring some catastrophic failure. It is doubtful that improved maintenance would lead to any recognizable increase in customer satisfaction. Additionally, customers may already be completely satisfied with Get - Away's services, thus no greater profits are possible from increasing customer satisfaction.
It is entirely possible that the personnel director's commitment to send the airline company's mechanics would indeed lead to the benefits that he or she has stated in the letter to the president. If the seminar does directly address maintenance and repair issues that actually would help the mechanics to improve the performance of their work duties, it is possible that the airline would see an increase in their efficiency and productivity. But barring some extrinsic evidence that is not included in the personnel director's letter, there are not enough facts stated to allow the president of Get - Away Airlines to make an informed decision on whether to send the mechanics to the Quality - Care seminar.
顶一下 0
踩一下
已有
