The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine devoted to regional life:
“Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in the recent recession, Helios’s unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region’s manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies.”
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 author makes the case for Helios as a destination for businesses looking to relocate. He notes that the city’s unemployment rate is lower than the regional average. He concludes that Helios is the center of the region’s economy by virtue of its historical manufacturing contributions, and that Helios is looking to expand by attracting companies that focus on R&D of innovative technologies. The reasoning presented is sound, but some of the evidence used is questionable. The author does not reveal how the unemployment figures were calculated, or whether it was before or after the recession. If unemployment figures were collected before the economic downturn, then it might be impossible to attribute the drop in unemployment to Helios. If unemployment figures were collected after the economic downturn, then it would be very difficult to point to Helios as the cause. Also, it is not clear how the author arrived at the conclusion that Helios historically has contributed more than its fair share of manufacturing jobs. It could be that the author is using statistics from decades past, or it could be that there is some data he omitted, which would support his argument
The author’s assertion that Helios is looking to expand by attracting companies that focus on R&D of innovative technologies is questionable. He notes that Helios is a hub for aerospace and defense, but he does not tie this to technological innovation, which was, after all, the motivation behind the US joining the space race in the first place. The author also says that Helios is attempting to expand its economic base, but does not provide any statistics to support this assertion. He simply states that the city’s economic development committee has identified Helios as a possible destination for businesses. The economic development committee is, in all likelihood, an ad-hoc group that assembled for a specific purpose; thus, its assessment would need to be supplemented with additional data
The author’s conclusion is sound, but it rests on a shaky foundation of flawed logic. The unemployment rate of a city is a poor gauge of that city’s economic health. If a city is losing jobs, then what metric should be used to determine whether it has the capacity to attract businesses? Perhaps the city’s proximity to a large metropolitan area, or to a university, or to a major highway network, is more significant. The ability of the local government to provide incentives for businesses to relocate might also be a factor. The effectiveness of these incentives could be measured with statistics that pertain to the employment levels that businesses in the city actually achieve after they relocate there
The author’s discussion of Helios’s place in the aerospace and defense industry, as well as the city’s desire to expand by attracting companies that engage in R&D of innovative technologies, are compelling. However, their importance is diminished by the failure of the author to provide sound data to support his assertions. The relevance of evidence should be evaluated in the context of the argument. If the writer wanted to support his argument with data, he should have included it. If the writer wanted to convince his readers that Helios is a desirable place to relocate, he should have provided specific reasons to support his assertions.