<<Student Name>>
<<Professor Name>>
<<Course Title>>
<<Date>>
Let’s analyze the positions held among Group 1 arguments and Group 2 arguments using the Toulmin methodology.
Group 1: The Halifax Convention Centre Developer should be responsible for businesses losses of neighboring businesses.
Group 1 begins its argument with a good introduction of the subject at hand. According to Toulmin’s methodology, an introduction to the subject provides a good hook to the reader – as to the content of the argument and enhances interest levels for further introspection. The introduction gives a good overview and context as to the reasons for developing the new Halifax Convention Centre.
Group 2: The Halifax Convention Centre Developer should NOT be responsible for businesses losses of neighboring businesses.
The Group 2 document is not formatted strictly as per the Toulmin theory, with appropriate heading. The first part is the introduction, which gives us details on the new project, costs and the positives and negatives of the project. The argument provides views of several neighboring business owners in the Metro News and the article by Van Horne that the long term benefits will far outweigh the short term impact.
Comparing Group 1 and Group 2:
Claim:
Group 2 has a better argument than Group 1.
Data/Grounds:
The introductory paragraph is well written and provides the reader with balanced opinions – the fact that the revenues will be utilized in the development of education and the healthcare sector plus the addition of $9.5 million in taxes for the province. It gives the other side of the story too. Retailers and hotel owners had voiced their concerns about the loss of tourism and business during the execution of the project due to traffic blockage and road closures. The claim is supported by a statement of benefit which states the reason for the claim – the fact that the project will result in long term benefits. It is supported by more data – that the Halifax Convention Centre is a vital part of the Nova Centre project and part of a five-year economic growth plan that sets ambitious targets of higher GDP and population growth by 2021. The Claim is supported by real data points with facts, figures and values. The data or Grounds mention the other side of the story – the fact that there could be short term losses because of the project, but the benefits that will be gained on a long term basis are many more.
Warrant:
Long term impact of the project needs to be the prime focus, rather than short term. The focus of the argument is on the long term benefit of the project. The paper provides lots of data points to support the Claim. Further Backing and support for the Warrant is provided by the research paper by Kelly Edmiston from Kansas in the United States. The research clearly links innovation and stable, high paying jobs to large businesses and ideas. The argument provides views of several neighboring business owners in the Metro News and the article by Van Horne that the long term benefits will far outweigh the short term impact. The evidence presented shows that people understand that great business gains can’t be achieved if the focus is on short term goals.
Backing/Evidence:
Group 2 has based their evidence and proof in a strong manner. The evidence presented shows that people understand that great business gains can’t be achieved if the focus is on short term goals. The Evidence also presents deeper facts about the concerns of the business owners. Although they are aware of the long term benefits, they are concerned that any delay in the implementation of the project will lead to losses of a magnitude that would not be sustainable. It also provides another facet of the argument – the fact that any litigation will motivate other business owners to sue and that will result in years of delays and failure of the project. These delays will further enhance the losses and hardships of the business owners.
Many facets to back the argument are provided by Group 2 in a cogent manner. It also provides another facet of the argument – the fact that any litigation will motivate other business owners to sue and that will result in years of delays and failure of the project. These delays will further enhance the losses and hardships of the business owners. This Evidence further supports the Warrant that progress and growth in a municipality are more often linked to large scale businesses.
Rebuttal:
Group 1 has done better formatting of their argument as per Toulmin method. It gives details of what the project entails; the sq ft area, the contractual obligations of the municipality and the developer, cost and other data. It sets the tone for the argument, with details of how the project will be cutting edge in 2017, helping build the economy and businesses within.
After the introduction, the Facts are presented. These facts clearly elucidate the problems faced by neighboring businesses. The Claim statement puts the blame on the developer as the company responsible for the loss of business among the neighbors. This is followed by the Grounds or the Data. The Grounds refer to news clips from CTV and CBS – without giving any detail of what exactly the Grounds are. The Warrant section again, speaks of the data from CTV and CBS without any detail as to what exactly the data points are and how they show the strength of the relationship between the Grounds and the Claim. The Backing section also is loosely written. Qualifiers do mention the fact that most businesses have suffered because of the construction project. The Rebuttal paragraph begins with the timeline of the project – 2017. The Conclusion section, merely restates the few points mentioned earlier and reinforces the Claim.
On the other hand, the Group 2 paper provides adequate Rebuttals and counter arguments too. This is really not a valid argument. It recognizes the fact, that opponents view long term economic benefits as just forecasts and projections with no real certainty. It counters this Rebuttal, by the fact that opponents should look at the bigger picture and support the long term ambitions of the municipality, in spite of the uncertainty. Uncertainties are a part of any business – big or small.
The second Rebuttal is also mentioned – that since the project has a large budget of $169.2 million, a small portion can be apportioned for economic difficulties suffered by the small business owners. It makes a strong counter point to this idea, mentioning detailed facts about the contribution to the budget by the federal government, province and municipality.
It counters the point by effectively stating that any such compensation would need to be carved out of government budget and the fact that Nova Scotia has a thin surplus of $17 million. The article supports the counter argument further by citing the lack of funds and the fact that one must focus on the larger long term good for the greatest number of people and not look at narrow gains.
Qualifiers: Group 2 is focused on one single minded claim – that long term benefits to community and the people has to be most important. The argument made is that business losses due to external factors are not new. Business owners are aware that even if a small shop is being constructed or a new competing business starts operations; it does result in some business losses. It cites the tenet of Ethical theory of the Categorical Imperative which states that we shouldn’t use humans as a means to an end instead we should act in a way we would want others to act. It does put the ball in the small business owners’ court by the question - would a small business agree to compensate neighbouring business owners for losses due to its construction? Would a small business compensate other businesses if they suffer losses due the activity of that particular small business?
Another point raised is the quote by a restaurant manager on Grafton Street with more than two decades of experience in the restaurant industry; who said that some businesses remained unaffected by the project development. The article also forcefully counter-argues on the basis of financial and economic fundamentals, ethics and the concept of Distributive Justice – the fact that it is ethically correct to distribute a resource equitably in a society for the larger good.
Further backing to the argument is provided by a discussion on Ethical Egoism. This enables individuals to make moral decisions based on their self interest. Group 2 brings in this important aspect with a detailed discussion. Group 2 further argues that the self interest is of the three levels of government - to ensure a robust future business and revenue.
It provides for many ethical and moral arguments to come to the conclusion that thee developer's project may not be responsible for the losses incurred by other businesses because it has been able to account for the rights and wrongs associated with the project by providing local stakeholders with a preliminary analysis concerning the risks and benefits associated with the development of the project. Another concept that is added to strengthen the argument is about Distributive Justice. This speaks of the fact that resources must be equitably distributed within society.
Conclusion: Group 2 has argued the case better by bringing to light various facets of the case. Their single minded approach to long term benefits of the project helped them to focus their thoughts. The data consists of many details and the evidence has been put forth in minute detail. Care has been taken to add many sources of information to support the claim.
They have included not only reviews in media, but also the comments of local business owners and academicians. The Group has presented these thoughts in a coherent and forceful manner, which demolishes the arguments made by Group 1.
