Continue - The last seventh day

jannyguo

Governments should not be responsible for regulating business and organiztions. Society will benefit more if the business and organizations establish and regulate themselves in own standard.


The passage asserts that governments should not interfere with the business organizations and reasons that society will benefit more if the business organizations establish their own standards. To some extent, I agree with the statements because a lot research has shown that free market could help stimulate the economic development. However, the author extends this board statements to an irreversible extreme that over looked some compelling factors may affect this issue. On balance, my point of view will involve several explanations as below.

On the one hand, I admitthat this statement, although suffers some obvious drawbacks, has some merits primarily in the nature of economic development. Fee economic competition can effectively adjust according to the market. A lot of government owned company bankrupt due to poor management or wrong market direction. On the opposite, business organizations without government control could make wise market strategies and properly managed to achieve profit. For example, a lot of Chinese government companies has bankrupt recently and are look for the help from outside. The reason is that before the open policy in 1980s, the products produced mainly for internal need. Local government could control the diversity of the products according to local population. However, after the open policy, the competition came from all over the world, and the customers are spread every corner of the world. In the case the local government could not control the demand and supply. Therefore some companies are facing difficulties due to poor market strategy and management skills.

On the other hand, an applicable choice should consider different aspects of the issue as sufficient as possible. As stated above, the author exaggerates the statement that society could benefit more if business organizations establish their oven regulations. First, appropriate government control could provide business organizations a better environment. For example, in order to stimulate the economic increase in certain area, the government could provide tax free policy to attract investment. Second, government control could adjust the development of diversities of industry to satisfy needs' of the society. In order to control certain high profit industry, such as real state, the government could set regulations to control the price to avoid society problems. For example, if rich people control most property in certain area, and then those people could control and price to make high profit while others are still struggling.Accordingly, I tend to concede that when it comes to concrete issues, the statement is partially appropriate.

To conclude, no single factor could affect more economic increase and society than free business competition, and none could deeply affect by the deposition of government appropriate interference. Business organizations could establish and regulate themselves in terms of how to run the business properly, and at the same time the government could decide the diversity of business type and provide certain regulations to make sure the free competition between different organizations are equal.

jannyguo

The following appeared as part of an article in the education section of a Waymarsh City newspaper.
“Throughout the last two decades, those who earned graduate degrees found it very difficult to get jobs teaching their academic specialties at the college level. Those with graduate degrees from Waymarsh University had an especially hard time finding such jobs. But better times are coming in the next decade for all academic job seekers, including those from Waymarsh. Demographic trends indicate that an increasing number of people will be reaching college age over the next ten years; consequently, we can expect that the job market will improve dramatically for people seeking college-level teaching positions in their fields.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.


The conclusion endorsed in this argument that the job market for college-level teaching will improve dramatically in the next ten years.  Several reasons are offered to support the conclusion. First, the author points out that better time are coming in the next decades for all academic job seekers and Waymarsh graduate could benefit the trend. In addition, the author reasons that more jobs will be available due to a trend that shows an increase number of people will be reaching college age over the next ten years. At first glance, the arguments appear to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveal that the conclusion is based on dubious assumptions and the reasoning is biased due to inadequacy and partiality of the evidence provided to support the conclusion. A careful view of the arguments would reveal how groundless the argument is.
First of all, the author commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification. The fact that the Waymarsh University graduate students could not find teaching jobs in the past decades does not necessarily explain that the graduate students can not find a job now or in few years later. The author failed to take into other factors may affect the issue, such as the overall economic situations which might be a major reason for poor employee rate. In order to make the reasoning more acceptable, the author should specific group of graduates that could not find a job. For example, if the students who study economic could not find a job while engineered majored students were better employed, then the argument is fallacious to make the causal assumption that all graduates could not find jobs. Only if above questions are answered, otherwise the assumption is worthless to support the conclusion.
Secondly, the evidence provides in the argument is insufficient to draw the conclusion. There is no evidence to explain what kind of demographic trends, who draft the trend, based on what kind of data. For example, if the trend is drafted according to the data happened in the past 10 years, it will be a good indicator for future job market. It is possible that the overall economic situation change would affect the job opportunities. In fact, in facing such kind of limited evidence, the conclusion is unwarranted.
To conclude, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. It is imprudent to claim that job market will improve dramatically in the next decades for college-level teaching positions. In order to make this argument more logically acceptable, the author would have to show and explain the reason why better time is coming for the academic jobs seekers. Furthermore, to solidify the conclusion, the author has to provide concrete evidence as well as demonstrate that the increasing number of collegues students could guarantee more opportunities for college-level teaching positions. Only if more convincing evidence provided could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.

99qiuqiu

加油