Can you Please Rate My Argument Task?

[Simeon]

This appears to be  a popular argument task: "SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp's current headquarters. Moreover, Middleburg is a predominately urban area and according to an employee survey, SuperCorp has determined that its workers prefer to live in an area that is not urban. Finally, Corporateville has lower taxes than Middlesburg, making it not only a safer place to work but also a cheaper one. Therefore, Supercorp clearly made the best decision."

I would appreciate anyone rating and giving me their feedback.

 

My Answer(with errors and all):

In coming to its conclusion that Supercorp clearly made the best decision moving its headquarters to Corporateville, the argument makes a number ofassumptions hat if proven unwarranted will seriously damage its veracity and validity. I will be considering some of these assumptions subsequently.

In stating that the surge in homeowners in Corporateville proves that it is a superior place to work that Middlesburg, the text's writer assumes that a surge in home owners is equal to superiority of living standard. We of course need more information before we can accept this as true. What if the surge in Corporateville was due to a natural disaster in the towns close to it causing residents from this towns to move? If this is the case, then in fact it is Corporateville's location and not its living standard that is responsible for its having more homeowners moving in. This would mean that the argument has made a wrong assumption.

Furthermore, even though we are told that SuperCorp conducted an employee survey, we are not told how representative the survey was. Perhaps only the top executives who earn enough to be able to live relatively insulated lives were interviewed. This would mean that the majority of the staff were not included in the survey and we do not know if they prefer to live in an urban area. We need more details about the survey before we can agree on its being truly relevant to Supercorp's decision making.

Moreover, even if the survey were truly representative of Supercorp's workers, there is a difference between living and working. The fact that Supercorp's workers prefer living in a non-urban area does not necessarily mean that they prefer working in such an environment too. Factors such as type of neighbourhood and presence/closeness of schools, shopping malls and hospitals which families consider in choosing where to live are not usually up for evaluation when it comes to choosing a location for a workplace. Unless Supercorp can show that the surveyed workers have the exact same attitude toward where they live as to where they work, then the company has most likely used wrong parameters to make its decisions.

It is also noteworthy that even if all of the assumptions made by the text prove to be warranted, concluding that the company made the best decision may be stretching it too far. Afterall there were only two locations considered.

The argument need to properly evaluate its assumptions more before concluding it has done.

 

 

 

[tripathiabhinav]

Hi Simeon,

Before I evaluate you, I would want you to know that my AWA was 3.5. 

Evaluation:

You have done a critical analysis of the argument which is the crux of this task.  Your order of argument makes sense as it lists assumptions in the same order as present in the premise. You have attacked three important assumptions which is again good. I'll rate you 3-4 on this (again I am not an expert and an average performer).

Some points I would want to make:

1. Your attack on first argument is based on an assumption that standard of living is important for an employee in evaluation of the town, which is a very valid assumption. However, my suggestion would be to include a paragraph prior to this point which justifies your using of 'standard of living' . You might point out that may be its the below-average salary that makes the employees not willing to live in urban areas. and substantiate that yes standard of living matters. Including this will make you have 4 points of attack and present you have 3 points of attack.

2. You have used the word 'veracity' for argument (if proven unwarranted will seriously damage its veracity and validity.) I think veracity is for things to be true or false. An argument cannot be true or false, an argument is in an abstract form which lacks objectivity of true/false. I recommend you work on using of proper words. Validity is the perfect work and it works fine in its entirety so no need to include veracity.

3. While analyzing an argument avoid using 'I'  and 'We' . The person reading your argument knows that its your view so no need to emphasize it by using pronouns. ( This point is very debatable and many people say its fine to use personal pronouns but I'll suggest you can discuss this point with some experts in writing around you).

4. My writing is not concise, that is, the amount of words I have used to put my evaluation is too much and below average. There are very few sentences(one or two) of yours which can be shortened. Remember : ' Brevity is the soul of wit'.

In nut-shell : Shorten sentences, use the words contextually, be aware of the assumptions you make to attack the author's assumptions and practice practice practice. 

I might be totally wrong at few places but I think it helps you.

Beeersss!

Abhinav

 

[Simeon]

Thank you Abhinav.

 

I do appreciate the feedback and will continue practicing

 

Best

Simeon