hssimanto

"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." Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted. My response: The given argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Is the argument prompt, there are some unwarranted assumptions which might not be true at all, therefore making the conclusion inappropriate. The decision to mode SuperCrop headquarters to Corporateville from Middlesburg is not valid based on the information of this argument because of these assumptions. First, the passage assumes that sudden surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, which is not a valid assumption. There are many unanswered questions regarding the assumption. For example, sudden surge might cause from the cheap land price of Corporateville, which not an indication of superior place to live. Living condition and home owners interest are not the same thing. Moreover, It might be a place with lots of industries, or even in a place where it doesn’t has any parks or schools for kids, or many more. As a result, it lessens the claim of superior place to live based on the only information provided in the argument. Had the argument provided any information about life security or social condition of Corporateville, or even the information about pollutions, it might have been a valid assumption. Second, the SuperCorp's employees prefer to live in an area that is not urban, which was known through a survey, is not a valid assumption. It might have surveyed on a few employees, or the survey questions wasn't related to this. For example, if the company had run the survey on a day where most of its employees were in vacation, this survey gives false interpretations. Again, survey questions are important, because SuperCorps employees might not be interested to move a place where social facilities are not enough. Moreover, Corporateville is an urban area, is neither mentioned nor indicated nowhere in this argument. What if Corporateville is in fact an urban area, which seriously weakens this assumption? So, based on this little information, survey and assuming Corporteville as not an urban area, moving headquarters is not a valid decision. Third, argument assumes that, as the taxes are low in Corporateville, it is a safe place to work. Lower tax has nothing to do with safety of the workplace. Again, there is no warranty that lower taxes will help SuperCorp in its business. For example, Supercorp might be in a business with daily commodities, and taxes might be lower in only house prices, which ultimately can be a disaster for SuperCorp. Again, safety of the workplace is not properly defined, which is necessary for its employees. However, without proper information about the safety and lower taxes, it is not a valid assumption to move SuperCorp headquarters to Corporateville. The argument was based on some faulty reasoning, and there a decision is made, which is to be invalid from different perspectives. So, the arguments decision to move headquarters is invalid. Please commant on my Argument task so that I can improve my writing style. Thanks in advance :)

"Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated." Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. My response: Technology is one of the best things that could ever happened to human civilization. Since the dawn of civilization to this very day, we are grateful to technology in so many ways that we may run out of scratch papers if we ever had to list. It has made our life simple, fast and reliable. In every aspect of our life, we can feel technology with all of our senses. So, technology was meant to make life simple, and it has done that quite successfully. First, we were not civilized, not no way near we are today, when our human race first arrived or evolved in the planet earth. For example, during the stone ages, human were used to live a life that was mainly based on hunting. As a result, they had to starve if they failed to hunt. Then they learnt the art of hunting by inventing effective techniques of hunting, developing their hunting equipment. That was one kind of technological achievement. Again, learning how to fire, was another breakthrough for ancient people. They learnt how to cultivate their lands, farm animals and so on. All of those were possible only by the technological achievement of that time. And those achievements made life immensely simpler that before. In that sense, technology only made our life complicated, the claim in the prompt, is invalid. Second, our human race's journey from ancient stone as to this modern age, was rife with problems. There was food problem, accommodation problem, devastating natural calamities, endemic sicknesses, and many more. The only reason they were able to overcome this, was technology. However, technology was a blessing upon them. For example, extinction of many deadly diseases weren't possible if it wasn't for technological advancement. Again, food shortage was another problem for our human race, that technology diminishes. Moreover, high-rise buildings, modern transportation and many more led the way to accommodation and transportation into a new era, only through the advent of new technologies. Therefore, trying to say explicitly that technology only makes lives more complicated is really not justified at all. If simplification means starving without food, or passing life inside cave fighting with nature, than may be, its true, which is not the case. Third, the advent of modern technology, has given us so many ways to think about, so many new ways to help human conquer the evil upon us, previously thought impossible. For example, invention and development of computers, was one of the most significant invention of the late 19th century. We can't think of our life without computers, not even a single moment these days. So, this argument over, complications of our life, is really relative. Sometimes, many people gets overwhelms to keep in pace with this modern, ever fast technology. That might have pushed the feelings of complicated life, easy and calm life with no more problems. But, actually that simple life, is a myth if there were not technological developments. With the help of this awesome, mind blowing technologies we have around us now, scientists have found exo-planets similar to earth, which is one of the biggest achievement of technology and science. That means, human race has started to explore more than ever. So, complicated life is not a means to measure the technological achievements, by no means at all. Please comment on my response on how can I improve my writing. Thanks in advance. :)