[indianspur]

The following appeared as part of an article in a local newspaper.

During her three years in office, Governor Riedeburg has shown herself to be worthy leader. Since she took office, crime has decreased, the number of jobs created per year doubled, and the number of people choosing to live in our state has increased. These trends are likely to continue if she is re-elected. In addition, Ms. Reideburg has promised to take steps to keep big companies here thereby providing jobs for any new residents. Anyone who looks at her record can tell that she is the best qualified candidate of governor.



The argument concludes that Governor Reideburg should be re-elected into office as she is the best qualified candiate. The author supports his decision by saying that since Ms. Reideburg has taken over the office crime has decreased, the number of jobs created per year have doubled, and the number of people choosing to live in that state has increased. In addition, the author claims that Ms. Reideburg has promised to keep big companies here thereby providing jobs for new residents. The author has conveniently assumed that these trends would continue and that companies present in the state will provide jobs continuously to all residents. The augument is full of gaps and loop holes since it presents fragmentary evidence. Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling. The argument is very evidently the result of a hasty generalization.



The argument clearly lacks sufficient evidence and statistical data to make such supererogatory claims. While the author has stated that crime has decreased, there is no statistical evidence to prove such a claim. It could just be a yearly trend, and nothing is expressed for us to believe that this a direct result of the governor efforts. Similarly, even data about the residents moving to the state is ambiguous as nothing about real estate values or quality of living is mentioned. Furthermore, the author cliams that number of jobs created per year have doubled, whereas the quality of the jobs or the pay of the jobs is not mentioned. This only debilitates the argument.



The agument takes various subjective factors into account. The author states that the governor promises to take steps to keep big companies in the state that will provide jobs to all new residents. These are only promises and whether they will be fullfilled or not is a huge speculation. The author does not include the promises made by the governor in her previous election and whether she kept to her word or not. Also, it is not necessary that the companies present would continue to provide jobs to all new residents. Likewise, the argument fails to mention what steps the governor would take to improve the infrastructure of the state. Such a claim is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion.



The argument also fails to include any testimonials of the present denizens of the state, and whether they are satisfied with the progress the governor has accomplised or not. Similarly, the credibility of the newspaper in which the arcticle has appeared has to be taken into account. The argument is quite clearly a propogandist motive to promote the governor. Finally, the article does not mention credibility of the other candidates contesting for the governor's office, and one cannot arrive at the conclusion that the Ms. Redeburg is the best suited candidate for the job.



The argument is the result of a huge speculation in which the auhtor has comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. Had the author taken the above discussed factors into view, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable. But whatever presented fails to provide a hololistic picture to the superfluous claims being made.