Argument Essay
The standard instructions after the topic for Analysis of an Argument will be as follows:
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.
Analysis of an Argument 1
Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space.
This argument recommends commissioning a famous architect known for futuristic and experimental designs as the best means of providing new affordable housing for Claitown University students. The argument's line of reasoning is that the building will attract paying tourists, new students, and donations from alumni—all of which will help raise the funds needed for the project. However, the argument is problematic in several critical respects.
First of all, a famous architect might charge a substantial fee for the project, in which case the funds raised by charging tourists and through alumni donations might be offset to the point of rendering the entire project unfeasible financially. The argument's proponent must address this issue before I can accept the argument's conclusion.
Secondly, the argument relies on the tenuous assumption that tourists will be interested in paying for tours of a building used for a purpose as mundane as student housing. It is entirely possible that once the building is in use, tourists will not be willing to pay for tours. Besides, perhaps the appeal of this architect's buildings lies primarily in their exteriors, in which case tourists would be able to appreciate the new building's salient architectural features without paying for a tour. In either case, the argument's claim that the architect's notoriety and the building itself will generate the funds needed for its construction would be dubious at best.
Thirdly, the argument fails to explain how the University will be able to pay for construction when it will not begin to receive the revenue it needs until after construction is complete. Unless the architect and contractors agree to be paid later, the argument's proponent cannot convince me that the recommended course of action will achieve the University's goals.
Finally, the argument assumes without justification that a futuristic or experimental building will attract alumni donations and students. While this might be true, it is also possible that instead the University's alumni and students stronger prefer the architectural status quo at their campus; in fact, the appeal of the campus' predominant architectural styles might be one of the key attractions for students and alumni dollars. Thus I would need some evidence to substantiate this assumption before I can accept the argument's conclusion.
In sum, as it stands the argument is not well supported. To strengthen it, the argument's proponent must supply clear evidence—perhaps involving other college buildings designed by famous architects — that tourists will be willing to pay for tours of the building once it is completed and is in use as student housing. To better assess the argument would need detailed and realistic financial projections, accounting for the architect's fees, to determine the project's financial feasibility. I would also need to know — perhaps by way of a reliable survey — the extent to which students and alumni would be likely to support the project.
Analysis of an Argument 2
The following appeared in a local newspaper.
"People should not be misled by the advertising competition between Coldex and Cold-Away, both popular over-the-counter cold medications that anyone can purchase without a doctor's prescription. Each brand is accusing the other of causing some well-known, unwanted side effect: Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure and Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. But the choice should be clear for most health-conscious people: Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer and is used by more hospitals than is Coldex. Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective."
This argument concludes that Cold-Away is a more effective non-prescription cold medication than Coldex. The argument points out that each one has a distinct unwanted side effect: Cold-Away causes drowsiness, while Coldex contributes to existing high blood pressure. To support its conclusion, the argument points out that Cold-Away has been on the market considerably longer, and that it is used by more hospitals than Coldex. I find the argument unconvincing for three reasons.
First, the mere fact that Cold-Away has been on the market longer than Coldex is scant evidence of their comparative effectiveness. Well-established products are not necessarily better than newer ones. Moreover, in my observation newer medicines often make use of newer pharmaceutical developments than competing products; thus it can be argued that since Cold-Away has been on the market longer than Coldex it is likely to be less, not more, effective than Coldex.
Secondly, the argument unfairly assumes that hospitals prefer Cold-Away because of its comparative effectiveness as a cold medication. It is entirely possible that hospitals do not consider drowsiness an undesirable side effect for their patients. For that matter, perhaps hospitals use Cold-Away primarily for this effect rather than as a cold medication.
A third problem with the argument involves Coldex's side effect: high blood pressure. Admittedly, people who already have a serious blood pressure problem would probably be well advised to use Cold-Away instead. However, only those people are susceptible to this side effect. Thus for all other people—the vast majority of cold-medicine users —
Coldex's side effect is irrelevant in choosing between the two products. Moreover, if a person without high blood pressure wishes to avoid drowsiness, Coldex would seem to be the preferable medication.
In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the argument's proponent must provide clear evidence that hospitals prefer Cold-Away because of its effectiveness in treating colds. To better assess the argument, I would need better evidence comparing the effectiveness of the two products-perhaps through clinical studies or reliable surveys of the general population.
Issue Essay
In this section, you have to plan and compose a response that presents your perspective on the topic you selected. A response on any topic other than the one you selected will receive a score of zero. You will have a choice between two Issue topics. Each topic will appear as a brief quotation that states or implies an issue of general interest. You are free to accept, reject, or qualify the claim made in the topic, as long as the ideas you present are clearly relevant to the topic you select. Support your views with reasons and examples drawn from such areas as your reading, experience, observations, or academic studies.
Analysis of an Issue 1
"When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most important question to consider is: How many people's lives will be improved if the results are successful?"
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples form your own experience, observations, or reading.
Should researchers focus on areas that are likely to result in the greatest benefit to the most people, as the speaker suggests? I agree, insofar as areas of research certain to result in immediate and significant benefits for society should continue to be a priority. Yet, strictly followed, the speaker's recommendation would have a harmful chilling effect on research and new knowledge. This is particularly true in the physical sciences, as discussed below.
Admittedly, scientific research whose societal benefits are immediate, predictable, and profound should continue to be a high priority. For example, biotechnology research is proven to help cure and prevent diseases; advances in medical technology allow for safer, less invasive diagnosis and treatment; advances in genetics help prevent birth defects; advances in engineering and chemistry improve the structural integrity of our buildings, roads, bridges, and vehicles; information technology enables education; and communication technology facilitates global peace and participation in the democratic process. To demote any of these research areas to a lower priority would be patently foolhardy, considering their proven benefits to so many people. However, this is not to say that research whose benefits are less immediate or clear should be given lower priority. For three reasons, all avenues of scientific research should be afforded equal priority.
First of all, if we strictly follow the speaker's suggestion, who would decide which areas of research are more worthwhile than others? Researchers cannot be left to decide. Given a choice, they will pursue their own special areas of interest, and it is highly unlikely that all researchers could reach a fully informed consensus as to what areas are most likely to help the most people. Nor can these decisions be left to regulators and legislators, who would bring to bear their own quirky notions about what is worthwhile, and whose susceptibility to influence-peddlers renders them untrustworthy in any event.
A telling example of the inherent danger of setting "official" research priorities involves the Soviet government's attempts during the 1920s to not only control the direction and the goals of its scientists' research but also to distort the outcome of that research — ostensibly for the greatest good of the greatest number of people. During the 1920s the Soviet government quashed certain areas of scientific inquiry, destroyed entire research facilities and libraries, and caused sudden disappearance of many scientists who were viewed as threats to the state's authority. Not surprisingly, during this period, no significant scientific advances occurred under the auspices of the Soviet government.
Secondly, to compel all researchers to focus only on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents. For example, imagine relegating today's preeminent astrophysicist Stephen Hawking to research the effectiveness of behavioral modification techniques in the reform of violent criminals. Admittedly, this example borders on hyperbole. Yet the aggregate effect of realistic cases would be to waste the intellectual talents of our world's researchers. Moreover, lacking genuine interest or motivation a researcher would be unlikely to contribute meaningfully to his or her "assigned" field.
Thirdly, it is difficult to predict which research avenues will ultimately lead to the greatest contributions to society. Research areas whose benefits are certain often break little new ground, and in the long term so-called "cutting-edge" research whose potential benefits are unknown often prove most useful to society. One current example involves terra-forming — creating biological life and a habitable atmosphere where none existed before. This unusual research area does not immediately address society's pressing social problems. Yet in the longer term it might be necessary to colonize other planets in order to ensure the survival of the human race; and after all, what could be a more significant contribution to society than preventing its extinction?
In sum, when it comes to setting priorities for research, at least in the sciences, the speaker goes too far by implying that research whose benefits are unknown are not worth pursuing. After all, any research worth doing delves into the unknown. In the final analysis, the only objective of research should be to discover truths, whatever they might not to implement social policy.
Analysis of an Issue 2
"The only responsibility of corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, is to make as much money as possible for their companies."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples form your own experience, observations, or reading.
Should the only responsibility of a business executive be to maximize business profits, with in the bounds of the law? In several respects this position has considerable merit; yet it ignores certain compelling arguments for imposing on businesses additional obligations to the society in which they operate.
On the one hand are two convincing arguments that profit maximization within the bounds of the law should be a business executive's sole responsibility. First, imposing on businesses additional duties to the society in which they operate can, paradoxically, harm that society. Compliance with higher ethical standards than the law requires — in such areas as environmental impact and workplace conditions — adds to business expenses and lowers immediate profits. In turn, lower profits can prevent the socially conscious business from creating more jobs, and from keeping its prices low and the quality of its products and services high. Thus if businesses go further than their legal duties in serving their communities the end result might be a net disservice to those communities.
Secondly, by affirming that profit maximization within legal bounds is the most ethical behavior possible for business, we encourage private enterprise, and more individuals enter the marketplace in the quest of profits. The inevitable result of increased competition is lower prices and better products, both of which serve the interests of consumers. Moreover, since maximizing profits enhances the wealth of a company's stakeholders, broad participation in private enterprise raises the wealth of a nation, expands its economy, and raises its overall standard of living and quality of life.
On the other hand are three compelling arguments for holding business executives to certain responsibilities in addition to profit maximization and to compliance with the letter of the law. First, a growing percentage of businesses are related to technology, and laws often lag behind advances in technology. As a result, new technology-based products and services might pose potential harm to consumers even though they conform current laws. For example, Internet commerce is still largely unregulated because our lawmakers are slow to react to the paradigm shift from brick-and-mortar commerce to e-commerce. As a result, unethical marketing practices, privacy invasion, and violations of intellectual-property rights are going unchecked for Jack of regulations that would clearly prohibit them.
Secondly, since a nation's laws do not extend beyond its borders, compliance with those laws does not prevent a business from doing harm elsewhere. Consider, for example, the trend among U.S. businesses in exploiting workers in countries where labor laws are virtually non-existent — in order to avoid the costs of complying with U.S. labor laws.
Thirdly, a philosophical argument can be made that every business enters into an implied social contract with the community that permits it to do business, and that this social contract, although not legally enforceable, places a moral duty on the business to refrain from acting in ways that will harm that community.
In sum, I agree with the statement insofar as in seeking to maximize profits a business serves not only itself but also its employees, customers, and the overall economy. Yet today's rapidly changing business environment and increasing globalization call for certain affirmative obligations beyond the pursuit of profit and mere compliance with enforceable rules and regulations. Moreover, in the final analysis any business is indebted the society in which it operates for its very existence, and thus has a moral duty, regardless of any obligations, to pay that debt.
