The following appeared as part of a memorandum from a government agency:
“Given the limited funding available for the building and repair of roads and bridges, the government should not spend any money this year on fixing the bridge that crosses the Styx River. This bridge is located near a city with a weakening economy, so it is not as important as other bridges; moreover, the city population is small and thus unlikely to contribute a significant enough tax revenue to justify the effort of fixing the bridge.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The reasoning used to justify not refurbishing the bridge seems sound on the surface. After all, the bridge connecting two small towns over a river may not seem as vital as other bridges. However, the assumption that the bridge has no significant effect on the economy of either town is faulty. The bridge connects the two communities over a river, so it has a critical function. The fact that the bridge is small makes it no less important to the city. The small size of the bridge only means that there are fewer vehicles and people to cross the river, so the bridge is less likely to be repaired or maintained. Furthermore, the assumption that the city’s population is small is a false one. While the city may not have a large population, it’s location makes it a prime tourist destination, which draws in thousands of visitors every year. Therefore, if the repair is delayed, the city’s tourism industry will suffer and tax revenue will decrease. Moreover, if the bridge fails, the emergency responders can be delayed in reaching the city, possibly causing loss of life. While this argument may be sound at face value, a careful analysis of the issue reveals some flaws
First, the argument assumes that the bridge is unimportant to the local economy. The reasoning is merely based on economics, and it fails to consider other factors. The limited funding available to repair and maintain bridges means that many bridges across the country will need to be neglected. If the repair of the Styx River bridge is postponed, it may eventually become unsafe. When a bridge becomes unsafe, the emergency responders can be delayed in reaching the local population. When an emergency occurs, every second counts, and some lives may be lost if the bridge is not fixed quickly enough. Therefore, neglecting a small bridge has serious consequences that go beyond economic considerations
Second, the argument assumes that the population of the city is small. While it is true that the town is relatively small, this does not mean that it is unimportant. The city’s population is an essential component of its economy. Tourists are drawn to the city because of its picturesque location, and if they are unable to reach the city, the tourism will suffer. Furthermore, the city’s residents are likely to spend money while in town. While smaller towns may not have large populations, the people who live there are likely wealthier than the people in other cities. Therefore, the city’s residents are more likely to support local businesses and pay more taxes. If this population were larger, the economy of the city would also be larger
If this reasoning were sound, the city would be justified in neglecting maintenance on many of its structures. However, when various government agencies compile lists of infrastructure that is in need of repair, they make sure to include small bridges. Therefore, this reasoning has little basis in reality.