Argument Analysis 8

The following is a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"As a local merchant, I wish to support the development of a ski resort in the state park north of our township. Along with many other merchants who favor the proposal by Ski the Slopes, Incorporated, I would, of course, experience a growth in my business. But I also know how much more prosperous, not to mention lively and interesting, our community would be if tourism increased. Since the main opposition comes from a few environmentalists* who do not even live in this community, I see no reason to give in to their views. The First National Bank has finally researched the project and agreed to fund it. As a result, I see no reason to delay development of the resort."

Environmentalists are people who advocate the preservation of the natural environment.

My response:

The author of the letter begins the letter by stating his support of the development of a ski resort in the state park north of the township. He or she is in support of the development because of the growth in his business the development would bring as well as the diversity the community would benefit from the development. Also, he further states that the First National Bank has researched and agreed to fund the project. The letter is based on a number of biased and unfounded assumptions which renders the argument weak.

One of the fundamental weaknesses of the author's claim is the lack of substantive evidence to support his or her argument. The writer is in support of the development because he,along with other merchants of similar views, claims that the development would bring a growth in their businesses. The writer states this as one of the reasons for the supporting the development of the ski resort. The fallacy is that the writer assumed that the development of the ski resort would definitely encourage a growth in his business. The writer failed to produce any statistical or numerical evidence that would indicate the growth of his business should the development be allowed to happen. Also, he mentioned “other merchants” who supported the development but failed to include testimonials that would have strengthened his claim.

The writer also states “how much more prosperous, not to mention lively and interesting” the community would be after the development of the ski resort. The writer did not mention how he came about this statement, or provide any evidence that would guarantee said benefits. This statement is a result of internally biased assumptions.

Also, there was little mention of opposition towards the development of the ski resort, apart from the opposition of environmentalists that do not stay in the area. This is not sufficiently cogent enough to make me support the writer's views. Though the opinions are from environmentalists not from the area, their opinions should be given serious consideration as well for they are experts in their field. To entirely disregard their opinions is to weaken the overall argument of the letter. In presenting his argument, the writer only also failed to include the oppositional views of local residents.

Lastly, the writer mentions states that the endorsement of The First National Bank should also be a reason for supporting the development of the ski resort. However, the motives as for why The First National Bank chose to support the development should be taken under scrutiny, for the Bank might have some partisan interests in the development.

In sum, the argument presented by the writer is weak and full of loopholes. Had the writer taken the above factors into consideration, the argument would have been rendered irrefutable.