15. This political advertisement recommends re-electing governor Adams because he
7 P2 F Q- F; ]9 H3 V" ~8 Hhas a proven leadership role in improving the state's economy. In support of this reason ) F4 s' N5 m- l0 n
the author cites these statistics: in the past year, most state workers' wages have gone up; * k% S4 a1 p& W! l
5,000 new jobs have been created; and six corporations have located in the state.
/ ~3 d' Q9 P: m" _4 @$ WAnother reason offered for re-electing Adams is a recent poll, which indicates that most $ U2 Q8 f. k, p+ E! L4 }
respondents believe the state economy would continue to improve if he were re-elected.
* O; N- H5 G Z( E& ~- c! RFinally, the author claims that rival Zebulon would harm the state's economy because he
4 d8 F! O0 c4 h7 U$ _disagrees with Adams' fiscal policies. This argument is fraught with vague,
# {4 i" Q$ I# Y+ j, b' |- E, Woversimplified and unwarranted claims.
4 K6 ? B& D0 p7 n$ \ To begin with, the statistics are intended to support the main claim that the state is
g& H0 N0 b4 }# qeconomically better off with Adams as governor. But these statistics are vague and : p" b9 |! x! G$ d
oversimplified, and thus may distort the state's overall economic picture. For example,
3 L- e: l1 V/ kstate workers' pay raises may have been minuscule and may not have kept up with cost
/ u9 _: a! ?- | w& ^ B" O8 C' mof living or with pay for state workers in other states. Moreover, the 5,000 new jobs may
, l9 B# m% W& M; T+ n6 chave been too few to bring state unemployment rates down significantly; at the same ) z5 x9 Y/ z( D- e6 b, w
time, many jobs may have been lost. Finally, the poll indicates that six new corporations
/ Z, m( w8 x% A# @located in the state, but fails to indicate if any left.6 ^# \+ t! a- V/ t9 \# |
Next, the poll cited by the author is described in the vaguest possible terms. The
5 Z5 w( X: p! z' d* x" w/ _) ?) sad does not indicate who conducted the poll, who responded, or how the poll was
! M1 ^+ V! |6 ~1 u" N* e. vconducted. Until these questions are answered, the survey results are worthless as ) H! z; ]9 R, V9 g
evidence for public opinion about Adams or his economic policies.. n+ d7 {: `. V
Finally, while we have only vague and possibly distorted evidence that the state is
: `5 {6 F) M, J$ c5 Sbetter off with Adams, we have absolutely no evidence that it would be worse off with , M$ o/ F, K* k4 v2 k
Zebulon. Given that the state economy is good at the moment, none of the author's 7 V' c3 ]# g8 j0 s b- H2 E
reasons establishes that Adams is the cause of this. And neither do they establish that
" U h* f5 R- d* b1 [& \+ `1 V' Hthe state wouldn't be even better off with someone else in office." w- C! q, R5 h1 G5 x2 }: |
In conclusion, this argument is weak. To strengthen the argument, the author must
5 w% X/ n; f7 mprovide additional information about the adequacy of state workers' pay raises, the , C0 S% z& ^/ ]* B9 u" Q! K
effect of the 5,000 jobs on the state's employment picture, the overall growth of : K1 C& W5 L! B1 b! w
corporations in the state, and other features of the state economy. Also, the author must , J5 @) g2 |( R# Z& R
support the claims that Adams' actions have caused any economic improvement and
. o7 s6 N) H9 d. `3 Jthat in the future Adams will impart more economic benefit than would Zebulon. |