scott woods usage. your opinion?

[FAFA]

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state. Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland. But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."


At a quick glance of this letter it may appear that it has coherent and peruasive arguments, but in a more in-depth view one may encounter a lot of flaws in the assumptions of the author. The author's line of reasoning is based on the fact that undeveloped Scot Woods land should be used to build a school there. This will benefit many people, and thus planning committee should reconsider using of this land. I find the author's arguments unpersuasive and I will explain my point of view.

First of all, the author doesn't provide any informatiion about the location of Scott Woods. This land may be situated not very close to Morganton, so it will be not very convenient for the pupils to get there. Also, the author is not absolutely sure if the land acreage will be used for athletic fields construction. He just presupposes that. The school administration may have a different opinion on the usage of Scott Woods land. The author could seriously strengthen his argument if he provided enough stastistical information about the number of schools in the area, proved the necessity of building one more school in that area, and also showed that Scott Woods would be the best place for a school construction.

Secondly, I can conclude that if Morganton residents voted for keeping Scott Woods undeveloped, the city lacks the recreation areas. Consequently, if a school will be built, the residents of the city will loose one more park. This may harm many people, because they won't be able to spend their free time outside with their family. Also, the devastation of a large park zone may significantly harm Morganton's atmosphere, inasmuch as many trees producing fresh air will disappear. The information about Morganton's ecological conditions could benefit the author's arguments a lot.

Finally, the letter fails to provide the Morganton's residents opinion in regards to a new school building. People may be against the school construction exactly in Scott Woods. They make have another proposal concerning the land usage. The information about Morganton's citizens opinion could influence author's arguments a lot.

Thus, I can conclude that this argument consists of many illogical shortcmings, which don't allow the editor of the local newspaper make a right conclusion about the perspectives of Scott Woods land usage.

[chunkymonkey043]

Haha, I was just about to post a topic asking someone to comment on my Scott Woods argument analysis. Instead, I'll give my attempt at a critique of yours (realize I've only written one argument analysis so far and am inexperienced), and then maybe you can critique mine. Or other people can critique both of ours? I wasn't sure if I should post a new topic.

"First of all" Paragraph: I don't understand how the author providing evidence about the number of schools in the area would affect the argument? The planning committee's proposal is to build a school nevertheless.

"Secondly," paragraph: are you saying that building a school would harm the community instead of benefit it? I think this is a counterargument to the author's argument. And, if I understand correctly, we are supposed to analyze how well the argument is made or the fallacies the author commits?

"Finally," paragraph: I think this is a great point (I'm biased cuz I wrote about this ) But its the mistake that the author assumes he knows what Morganton's residents think. I think you should elaborate more on this.

[chunkymonkey043]

Here's my attempt:


The author begins his argument by stating that five years prior, the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in a natural state. When consideration of this issue was brought up again, the author falsely assumes that since the majority vote five years ago supported the author's beliefs, he now speaks for the residents of Morganton as a whole. This sentiment is notably conveyed through the tone of statements like "There would be no better use of land in our community," and "Our thinking was that..." The author provides no evidence that the residents of Morganton voted for the author's specific reasons.

The second claim the author makes is that the vote five years prior was based off the idea that a lack of shopping centers or houses, and a natural parkland would be of benefit to the community. The author uses the term "benefit" in a subjective sense, without justifying why the lack of houses or a natural parkland would in any way benefit a community.

The third claim is a correlation with causation confusion. The idea that if the land was a school site, no shopping centers or houses could be built there is unjustified. There is no description to the size of the Scott Woods parkland, meaning both schools as well as shopping centers and houses could be built on that site. There is no mention of the city planners exact plans. The author states that the planning committee would like to build a school, but based on a committee wanting to construct a school, it cannot be deduced that that same committee, as a result, does not want to build other things as well.

The fourth assumption that substantial acreage would be devoted to athletic fields is not buttressed by any evidence. Perhaps there are already sufficient athletic fields in the community? The author mentions no restriction on the city planners to build an athletic field, or for that matter, not build shopping centers and houses.

In sum, it is clear that the author provides no evidence that the community agrees with the authors reconsideration of the vote passed five years prior even though he speaks with that assumption. In his argument, he makes several assumptions about the intentions of the city planners beyond what is specifically stated. These issues such as not building shopping centers and houses and building athletic fields is a subject to be debated and voted on, and not assumed.

[FAFA]

hi!
I just wanted to make some points clear
we are supposed to criticize the argument as much as possible.here I think,the author doesn't provide any info concerning the number of parks in the area, thus it can be a flaw.
next.I liked the arguments you use,but test makers also advice us to write what could improve the author's line of reasoning.so,besides critisizing the author's arguments try to write more what the author could do to strengthen his point of view.
anyway,good attempt!
good luck to you!

[hascheidl]

"First of all" Paragraph: I don't understand how the author providing evidence about the number of schools in the area would affect the argument? The planning committee's proposal is to build a school nevertheless.

For me it's clear that it would enhance the argument. Paraphrasing: If the number of schools were provided, along with some kind of research on the necessity of a new school, the argument would be strengthen.
One change that can be done is emphasize the dependence between the two pieces of information.

[Acrimone]

Let us look at this argument piece by piece:

Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state.

This isn't an argument, but a statement of fact. Presumably it is true.

Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland.

As someone else has pointed out already, there is an issue with presuming to speak for the community here: the author does not necessarily have any sort of access to the thoughts of the community as a whole, even if such things actually were to exist. It's reasonable to assume that everyone had their own reasons for voting the way they did.

Additionally, to the extent that this prior vote is going to be used as the basis for a further argument, it's fallacious in at least the following two ways:

1) There is no guarantee that the people still feel the same way.

2) There is no guarantee that the same people are doing the deciding.

In other words, prior majoritarian vote is not a compelling argument for repetition. Arguments from tradition, on the other hand, have a certain weight to them, but that's not what's being set up here.

But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue.

This seems to be an uncontroversial (and generally unnecessary) sentence. Of course we should reconsider things when the town planning committee is about to vote to change them.

If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields.

As previously pointed out, school site is not necessarily incompatible with shopping centers and houses. The size of the woods is unspecified.

Here also we see the invocation of the (presumed) prior majoritarian condemnation of shopping centers and houses on the land. Even if schools are incompatible with stores and houses, it's not clear that in the present the need for shopping centers and houses hasn't increased to the point where this would be a good idea.

Not every school has "substantial acreage" devoted to fields. Some schools have a rubber-coated yard. Some schools instead build stadiums and baseball diamonds. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that the school fields will be accessible to the public, and there's a more or less certain guarantee that they WILL NOT be accessible during school hours or when school teams are using them.

There would be no better use of land in our community than this,

This isn't an argument -- it's a conclusion. The author's ipse dixit doesn't carry a lot of weight.

since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland.

There's nothing natural about school fields. They are carefully tended and often filled with things like chalk lines, fences, backstops, and goalposts. You don't get trees in the middle of a school field very often.

Furthermore: the notion of keeping the land for natural parkland, even if it is still a legitimate goal in the eyes of the majority, presumably is about keeping it available for ALL residents, not just children. (See previous argument re: access.)

There's a huge disconnect between keeping something as an athletic field for children and keeping something as "natural parkland" for the enjoyment of the community as a whole. Many members of the community likely don't even have kids.

THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A FULL EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUES OR A SAMPLE RESPONSE: this is just me throwing down my ideas about this argument in approximately 6 minutes. If I had 30 minutes, it would be much more cogently put together.

-A