Free What Are The Premise(S) In The Article? Critical Thinking Sample

The article by Greenhouse (2002) focuses on analyzing the validation of the demand made by the fast-food workers wherein they are asking they are asking the companies to increase the wages to $15 per hour from the present $9 per hour.

What evidence is presented? Is it credible?

According to the insights presented and the interviews cited within the article, the increase of the wages by almost 67 percent is validated by giving several reasons. Some of the economists believe that by increasing the hourly wages as per the demand, it would save the government almost $7 billion, which it pays to the fast-food workers by way of food stamps and other such programs.
Other few economists believe that by handing out more money in the hands of the fast food workers, it would work as a stimulus to the economy and hence, with the increase in the number of consumers willing to spend, the economy would strengthen.
While the first argument may prove to be validated, the second argument showcases short-sightedness and unwarranted assumption. The fact that the fast-food workers would have more money to spend is true. But saying that this will help in boosting the economy is a false assumption. The fact is that the increase is wages by that percent would rather decrease the employment rate in the economy and hence, may worsen the economy instead. Moreover, while a few hands would be receiving more money, the consumers would face the brunt by increased fast-food prices. This might reduce the consumer spending and hence any positive effects of increased wages would be nullified instantly.

Can you independently verify the evidence presented?

The US government websites do provide verification for the evidence that currently almost 52% of the fast-food workers take government assistance in the form of food stamps. By increasing the daily wages, the need for this assistance would decrease and hence, government spending on food stamps would also decrease, benefitting the overall economy.

How are counterarguments addressed?

The counter-arguments presented claim that the increase in the minimum wages by 67 percent would rather prove detrimental for the economy. These arguments claim that an increase by that much would result in increased food-price costs by almost 10% to 20%, thereby decreasing the number of footfalls in the outlets. Further, it is also claimed that since it is the labor class which is most dependent on the fast-food for their meals, they will be adversely affected by this price rise, thus negating any positive effects of the increase of minimum wages.
Some economists are also of the view that increasing minimum wages by 67% would result in the companies bringing in more automation and hence, reduction in the number of jobs available in the market. This would adversely affect the employment rate, thereby negatively affecting the economy as well.
All in all, the counter-arguments presented do sound acceptable. Nevertheless, owing to lack of any evidence, they do lack conviction.

Does the writer represent a particular interest?

The manner in which the writer has concluded the article, it is evident that the writer is against the motion of increasing the minimum wages by 67%.

How is language used to develop the argument?

Do you detect any errors in knowledge, evidence, or thinking?
According to the fallacies and errors in thinking as explained by Boss (2012) in his book “Think”, the counter-argument provided against the motion of increasing the minimum wages lack conviction since no evidence is available to prove these points. The economists are merely assuming certain events in case the wages are raised. Further, at the end of the article, the reader is left in confusion owing to the lack of proper conclusion. It is evident from the article that the author is against the motion, nevertheless he fails to provide any solid evidence to prove his point of view.

Does the writer use any types of appeals or commit any fallacies?

The writer commits the “post hoc” or “questionable cause” under the “unwarranted assumption” fallacy. According to the author, increase in the minimum wages would increase the food prices and hence reduce consumer spending. The fact behind this is however not proven and hence, the assumption that increasing minimum wages would adversely affect consumer spending is wrong.

Overall, how compelling is this article?

Other than the fact that the author fails to provide any solid proof (other than the statements from economists) against the motion, the article does prove its point. While it does not entirely makes the reader believe in the inappropriateness of passing the increase in minimum wages to $15 from the present average $9, it does make the reader think about any adverse affects that the economy may face due to the premise expressed in the article.

Reference List

Boss, J. A. (2012). Think: Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Greenhouse, S. (2013). $15 Wage in Fast Food Stirs Debate on Effects. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/business/15-wage-in-fast-food-stirs-debate-on-effects.html The New York Times