The following appeared as part of an article in a Dillton newspaper. "In an effort to bring new jobs to Dillton and stimulate the city's flagging economy, Dillton's city council voted last year to lower the city's corporate tax rate by

The notion that new factories mentioned are staffed with exotic workers is cogent at first glance. This is because Dillton's tax rate has declined into 15-percent and also provides generous relocation grants. It would attract more factories and create working chances. At the same time, the new factory has employed 1000 people. Nonetheless, the argument is filled up with logical mistakes and assumptions. And these defections cause other possible explanations. The details would be discussed below. To begin with, the arguer assumes that the lower tax rate and relocation grants would effectively bring new factories. It is hard to deny the possibility that these friendly policy is less competitive with concerning some near regions' advantage. Other cities may have extraordinary traffic, low cost of employing workers and convenience for importing prime material. In this case, the friendly policy above is less possible to attract new factory which would bring more work opportunities. Hence, the argument above still needs more persuasive evidence to preclude this explanation. Moreover, the arguer fails to prove the fairness of the unemployment rate. It is universally acknowledged that the method of carrying research could influence conclusion significantly. For instance, the government may let citizens who are walking on the street to fill their forms in a specific period when the majority of workers are working. In this condition, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion mentioned in the argument because the individuals who could walk on the street in working time have a high possibility of being unemployed. Therefore, the arguer should prove the validity of the conclusion above. Finally, even though explanations above are precluded, the arguer still works worse with proving that new factories do not employ local people. It is equally possible that another big company has collapsed for business competition. And a lot of people lose their job for that. At the same time, the similar amount of residents are employed by new factories. In this condition, the unemployment rate may also unchanged. To sum up, the argument is less cogent than seem for the lack of more information assistance. It is essential to glean more evidence to make the argument more persuasive and exclude other explanations.