Argument 2. Central Plaza

The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner.
"Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.



The author recommends that Central Plaza prohibit skateboarding to increase its sales. The author claims that the decrease in sales is due to the increase in skateboarding. This may be a specious argument that calls for answers to some critical questions. 

All questions ultimately lead to the central question: Did skateboarding really cause the decline in business? 

The author notes that sales in Central Plaza "steadily decreased" while skateboarding "increased dramatically" in the past two years. Just how did these figures coincide? Perhaps the sales gradually and slowly decreased over the whole span of two years, and skateboarding was a surge in the last month or so of this same period. In this case, it would be unreasonable to make the connection that skateboarding was the determining factor in decreasing sales, and thus the author's recommendation would fail. 

On a few aspects, the author assumes a causation where the relationship simply may be one of correlation. The author needs to provide tangible evidence that increased skateboarding directly detracted people from shopping in the area. He may provide surveys of shoppers that ask them how they feel about the skateboarders crowding the Plaza, how their presence is affecting the shoppers' inclination to shop at the stores, how their perception of the Plaza has changed, etc. 

Is it the skateboarders who vandalized and littered in the Plaza, or did they somehow indirectly affect others to vandalize and litter? The author provides no evidence that skateboarders vandalized the property. He may provide surveillance clips, if it were indeed their deed. Skateboarders may not have to do anything with the people who are vandalizing (perhaps a gang moved into town). Maybe teenage delinquents chose this Plaza to hang out with their skateboarding friends. Another possibility is that increased skateboarding indirectly affected littering by rendering the mood that let people think the Plaza is a place to do so. Perhaps people associate skateboarders with delinquency, and think it is permissible in the area to engage in those acts for themselves. The latter possibility of skateboarders indirectly affecting people's perception of the Plaza as a place to litter and vandalize may be more difficult to capture, however, it is a critical question that must be answered to weigh the author's recommendation. 

In sum, the author must provide tangible evidence to answer whether the effect is due to causation or simple correlation. If there is significant proof that increased skateboarding affected decreased sales, the author's recommendation to prohibit skateboarding to recover sales may produce the intended outcome.

Issue 127. Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today.

Issue 127. Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.


    Knowledge about the past does not guarantee an outcome when applied to today's decisions. However, such knowledge informs people to make smarter decisions. 

    People who accede that knowledge about the past cannot help make today's decisions would argue that every situation is unique, and therefore, a successful decision in the past cannot be applied to achieve the same today. Take for example, the movement of stock prices. One cannot make decisions about the future from past behavior with certainty. In such a case, one cannot guarantee that a decision made today based on Company A's previous stock prices will be successful. However, many believe that being informed of past behavior will help them make smarter decisions. 

    We learn history to learn from past mistakes to make better decisions today. Granted, we will not be faced with the exact same circumstances today. However, today's quagmire will parallel at least one instance from the past. For example, take the case of the nuclear bombings that ended World War II. Because humanity observed the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the cataclysm effected by nuclear weapons, not only those in power but all of humanity knows we must take heed in deciding to employ such weapons in the future. Knowledge of what happened in the past is informing people to be more careful in making decisions. 

    Previous records of natural disasters help us to make more informed decisions today. Hurricane Sandy was a destructive force that wiped out a part of the nation, leaving many to despair. Speculators claim, however, that the extent of the damages would have been lessened if smarter measures were taken. Recently, in preparing for Storm Hercules, the government based its decisions on Sandy to be smarter in facing a forthcoming natural disaster of similar scale. 

    Even intuitive decisions are informed by knowledge formed in and of the past--a bestselling author, Malcolm Gladwell, claims in his book "Blink". Gladwell explicates that those successful decisions that were made in a blink of a second are actually a product of years, often decades, of experience. A head firefighter shouts at his crew to leave the burning house and a moment later, the whole house crumbles down. During an interview afterwards, the firefighter recalls that his decision was intuitive. He had not deliberated his decision. However, Gladwell proves that it was his years of experience as a firefighter that helped him at once to gather up knowledge of past experiences to quickly--although subconsciously--make a smart decision. 

   Although gainsayers may claim that past knowledge cannot guarantee the outcome of current decisions, learning from the past will veritably inform us to make smarter decisions. 
   

Issue 126. Governments should offer college and university education free of charge to all students.

126. Governments should offer college and university education free of charge to all students.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Although government-backed college education seems like a good idea, such free education will actually do a disservice to students.

First of all, college and university education for everyone will devalue higher education. In countries where higher education is a privilege, candidates who graduated from universities will be more valued in the job market over high school graduates. However, with everyone attending university for free, people entering the job market will have to compete by going on to graduate school. Since graduate school is unlikely to be free, students will have to end up paying money for a higher degree of education to be a strong candidate during job search.  

Secondly, there are financial factors to consider. How will the schools be run? Big private institutions such as Harvard and Brown are almost like giant corporations. They need to be funded. Schools source a chunk of their operation costs from students’ tuitions. The overhead consists of pay for faculty and running school buildings. Although schools do receive huge endowments from alumni and parents, this will not be enough to cover all costs. Take the faculty’s pay for example. Relying on a limited amount of donations, schools will be likely to stint on paying their professors. This will discourage professors from being motivated to teach, and will also bereave them of research funding to further their field of study. Learning from such professors will not be beneficial for the students. Such financial concerns support the claim that free college education will be counterproductive.

Government funding has to be sourced from somewhere. This will be on the backs of taxpayers. Although students will take advantage of free education until they are around 25, once they start paying taxes, their once-believed “free” education will be an onerous burden. As my first example claimed, fresh graduates will have a more difficult time competing against each other for jobs. Greater supply (of candidates) in the job market, will lead to a reduced salary. Students will have to be content with low paying jobs because of the heightened competition. The burden of their ‘free’ education is exacerbated. These two financial factors do not render free education a boon for students at all.

Free university education will open up opportunities for many. Students will not be penalized for their family background. Academically successful students will not have to forgo a place at a better, and more expensive, institution because of their financial situation. These are some of the benefits. However, free university education on a national level will raise the expectations. The standards will now be university education. This will inflate higher education and recede to the problem mentioned above regarding heightened competition in the job market.

In sum, free university education is a specious offer that will be a disservice to students in reality.

Argument 1. Woven Baskets

Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

Response:

The author makes the conclusion that Palean baskets were not unique to Paleans. His or her argument relies on shaky premises. 

The author rashly assumes that when something is not found, it means it did not exist. He says that because "no Palean boats have been found," boats did not exist in Palean culture. This is an ancient culture. Boats may have existed but without any record of them to outlive the times. Evidence that specifically shows that no boat existed in Palean culture could better support his conclusion.

The author also assumes that because the Brim River "is very deep and broad," the Paleans could have crossed it only by boat. He makes an observation of the river now, to make conclusions about how it may have been in the ancient times. In the time since the ancient Paleans, the river could have swelled and widened. It may have been that long ago, the Brimg River was narrow and shallow enough to have forded it on foot. Records of the history of the river being broad and deep from the ancient times may strengthen his argument.

The biggest assumption is that his conclusion relies on a causation assumption in the case of a simple correlation. He assumes that because the baskets were discovered in Lithos (and Paleans could not have crossed over the river to make their baskets in the neighboring village), the Lithos people must have made the same baskets. The discovery of the baskets in Lithos is insufficient to conclude that the Lithos people made the baskets themselves. Even if it is true that the Paleans could not have crossed the river to make their baskets in Lithos, there are many other possibilities that the baskets were made by Paleans and not by others. Perhaps the Lithos people had boats that allowed them to travel to the Palean village. The Paleans could have given the baskets as gifts for the visitors from Lithos. The Lithos visitors would have, then, taken back the Palean baskets back to their village. Another possibility is that the baskets were deserted in the river and by chance drifted away and wound up in the Lithos village. All in all, the author must show evidence that he exhausted all options that it were the Paleans who made the baskets that were found in Lithos.

To sum up, the author relies on unwarranted assumptions to conclude that the Palean-style baskets were not unique to Palean culture. He assumes that something not found means it did not exist. He makes conclusions about the ancient times from the situation today, and assumes the continuity of nature. Lastly, he makes the assumption that when something happens together, one must have caused the other. He must provide evidence to support the flwaws.