"Unemployment has been stuck around 9 percent for more than two years. Business is treading water. Families have less cash to spend. Markets are in turmoil. All our old anxieties have us by the throat again: the American Dream is dead; the middle class is disappearing; our children won’t live as well as we do. "
P1: Unemployment has been stuck around 9 percent for more than two years.
P2: [Because of this same recession] Business is treading water.
P3: [Because of unemployment rates] Families have less cash to spend. [widening the upper & lower class rift]
C1: The middle class is disappearing.
This was an excerpt from an editorial in the New York Times written by Sylvia Nasar (9-17-2011) discussing the ways the public views John Maynard Keynes (pioneer in macro economics). While certain parts of the article do appear to be either opinionated or a statement of belief, she includes certain facts that cannot be disputed (P1), and forms her statements by at least claiming them to be true, therefore making them premises. These premises I included would differ from the other parts of the paragraph, such as "the American Dream," and how markets are in "turmoil," because I felt these were more opinionated points and subjective to the eyes of the beholder, and only thrown in to make the writers message more pertinent. For this reason I would say this is a somewhat strong, inductive argument, although more likely to be uncogent.
Nasar, Sylvia. "Keynes: The Sunny Economist." Www.nytimes.com. The New York Times Company, 17 Sept. 2011. Web. 18 Sept. 2011. < http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/opinion/sunday/john-maynard-keynes-his-sunny-optimism-shaped-economists-approach-to-depression.html?ref=opinion >
I agree this is an argument and reasonably strong. However an argument can and usually does have opinions and subjective interpretations as premises. This doesn't cancel the validity or strength of the argument, only its soundness or cogency.
ReplyDeleteIf the author started by saying "Unemployment has been stuck around 29 percent for more than two years." the argument would still be strong (in fact it would be stronger) but it would not be cogent because the premise is clearly false.
I don't agree with the conclusion to this argument. I think that your conclusion here implies that the middle class are the only people being effected by the recession, causing them to slip below "middle class" standards. I would argue that the recession is keeping the size of the middle class consistent because those who were once members of the upper class are slipping into the middle class. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the recession is causing almost all incomes to shift down a little rather than simply erasing the middle class.
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure if this particular argument was strong enough to convey the fact that indeed, the middle class is disappearing. The fact that our nation's GDP and standard of living grows every day while the rates of unemployment and people on welfare grow support that there is a growing void between the wealthy and poor.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an argument, but the way you chose your premises and conclusion made it very difficult to understand. I possibly think you might even have the wrong conclusion. If you reword what you have already stated and make it clearer and more concise, it will help to clear up what you are trying to get at. I think you have the right idea though!
ReplyDelete