Critical Thinking Exercise #9: Instructions
On the next page, you will find an argument. Please a) diagram the argument, b) analyze each main premise and tell me whether it is reasonable or not, c) analyze each main premise and tell me whether it relevant or not, and d) identify the value assumption contained in this argument.
Diagramming the Argument
This is a relatively complex argument with a number of main premises, most of which are supported by one or more sub-premises. You should attempt to include all premises and sub- premises while omitting anything that isn't a premise or subpremise (such as background information, statements in which the author merely restates the conclusion, empty rhetoric, etc.). In doing so, please heed the following:
- Your diagramming should be more in list format rather than essay format
- You should indicate the conclusion with a "C"
- You should indicate premises and sub-premises with a "P"
- Sub-premises should be listed immediately under the premise that they support, and they
should be indented in order to indicate that they are sub-premises Critiquing the Argument - Reasonableness and Relevancy
Your critique should be similar to your earlier critiques, except now you must comment on the relevancy of each premise in addition to its reasonableness. You should comment on each of your main premises and tell me whether you think they are reasonable and relevant and why. In other words, if you have 7 main premises, you should analyze each main premise separately and tell me whether each one is reasonable and why, and whether each one is relevant and why. You would have 14 "mini-essays," two mini-essays for each main premise. This analysis should also indicate any factual assumptions that are missing.
Identifying the Value Assumption
Finally, you should identify the value assumption being made the author. This should consist of only one sentence, and it should take the form of: "X is more important than Y."
????
Critical Thinking Exercise #9: The Argument
The following is an argument written by Arianna Huffington entitled "Political Contributions Have Absolutely No Impact...And Other Beltway Lies."
"Well, at least one good thing has come out of the Enron debacle, other than a post- Thanksgiving spike in shredder sales. Prodded by revelations that almost half of Congress had cashed Enron checks, campaign finance reformers snagged the last two signatures needed to bring the Shays-Meehan ban on soft money to a long-overdue vote. Maybe it's Enron's way of giving a little something back.
Reps. Corrine Brown and Richard Neal, who provided the decisive signatures, both cited Enron in their decision. "I think Enron focuses the debate," said Neal.
Indeed it does: Are the huge contributors who coughed up half a billion dollars in soft money last election getting nothing for their contributions other than the warm glow of participating in the democratic process? Or does that pricey quid come with an even more generous quo?
The corporate leaders who are cutting checks are, in fact, very clear on what they are buying. Take the persuasive little memo Enron's political action committee sent to employees in June 2000, soliciting "voluntary" contributions of between $500 and $5,000. In it, company execus make no bones about why they needed the money, saying it would help the company prevail in the numerous legal and regulatory challenges it was facing, as well as in a range of tax and environmental issues. The memo was deafeningly silent on the virtues of participating in the democratic process.
But it isn't just the likes of Ken Lay who understand the value of political donations. None other than Vice President Dick Cheney practiced similar spending habits when he was running energy giant Halliburton.
The company was facing a potentially devastating wave of asbestos-related lawsuits. And instead of arguing its case, it decided it would be cheaper to simply change the law. As a former member of Congress, Cheney knew the quickest way to a politician's heart was through his wallet. So he and the company opened their checkbooks, doling out $494,452 to congressional candidates from 1997 to 2000, with $157,000 going to 62 lawmakers who, whaddyaknow, co- sponsored bills limiting the liability of asbestos producers. Cheney, clearly a man committed to leading by example, personally contributed $12,500 to politicians helping push his company's agenda.
Such donations are the equivalent of a soft-money smart bomb: precisely targeted to where they'll have the most impact. It is clear that those giving the money know that it tilts the scales in their favor.
Even at the height of the bull market, no IPO ever delivered a rate of return as high as an investment in a politician - and elected officials' willingness to sell off public policy isn't cyclical.
But now, the lights have been turned on and the roaches are scattering. And while continuing to insist that political contributions have absolutely no influence on them, the good folks in Washington can't seem to decide on the best way to prove it.
Some are sticking with the tried and true: deny and deposit. "We're not giving away the contributions," said a spokesperson for Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA), the gung-ho leader of the House investigation into Enron and Arthur Anderson, who has raked in over $53,000 from the
??
two companies since 1989. "If they thought this would buy them influence, they've blown their money." In other words, you can bribe me, but if it goes public, we don't know each other.
Others are determined to have it both ways, rejecting the notion that the Enron money mattered while falling all over themselves to score Brownie points by getting rid of it.
Among those playing "Take Back the Money" are Sens. Phil Gramm, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Sam Brownback, Tim Johnson and Hillary Clinton; Senate candidate Libby Dole, and both national parties.
This rush to refund raises the question: If the money didn't buy influence, why the mad scramble to return it? And where is the payback money coming from - new donations? If so, what makes these new donations any purer than Enron's? And, come to think of it, isn't that how Charles Ponzi's original scheme worked?
"To destroy this invisible government," wrote Theodore Roosevelt nearly a century ago, "to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
Roosevelt's was the driving force behind the ban on corporate donations that was enacted in 1907 - a law the current soft-money loophole makes a mockery of. Closing it won't put an end to the "unholy alliance" at the heart of the Enron debacle. But it's a start - and an important one."