The following appeared in the editorial section of a lifestyle and travel magazine:Davidson County is primed for a resurgence as the culinary capital of our state. This year alone, 20 new restaurants have opened in Davidson County and the county college s

Though the author's argument may well have its merit, he presents a poorly reasoned argument. It fails to be convincing since it is based on a number of unwarranted assumptions and unsubstantiated facts.

The first major flaw with the argument is its weak premise. Though the author says that the county is primed for a "resurgence" as the culinary capital, he provides no facts or evidence to bolster the claim that the county was, in fact, a culinary capital at some point of time in the past. The argument can be strengthened if the author provides us with the kind of evidence that point to the county being a culinary capital in the past. For example, if it is the birthplace of a famous chain of restaurants like the KFC or MacDonalds. Instead, referring to a county as a culinary capital without any sort of significant reason to do so is a stretch.

Secondly, the evidence that the author gives us to justify the "resurgence" of the county as the culinary capital is also flawed. He uses the fact that 20 new restaurants have opened in that year to account for the resurgence. He does not provide us with any statistics regarding the number of restaurants in the county last year. If the number of new restaurants will merely make up for a deficit in the number of restaurants being experienced in the county, then the author's claim will be weakened. Further, he makes an unwarranted assumption that since the county college has announced an expansion of its culinary arts program, there will be a resurgence of the county as the culinary capital. He does not provide us with any evidence as to how a college introducing culinary arts program can impact or cause a resurgence of the county as the culinary capital. We could have accepted his claim as true if he had given us enough examples as to how the new culinary course will positively impact the image of the county as a culinary capital. For example, will the college organize events to bolster culinary art? Will there be tie-ups between the college and the restaurants to conduct food festivals and so on?

Finally, the author wrongly assumes that since one-third of the restaurants in Roth County went out of business last year, its residents will choose to eat in the restaurants in Davidson County. The author fails to account for the reason as to why the restaurants closed in the first place. What if the citizens of the county prefer to eat home-cooked food rather than restaurant food? If this is indeed the reason, then the closure of restaurants in Roth County won't benefit Davidson County in any way. The author could have made a cogent argument if he gave us evidence to support his claim. For example, if the restaurants went out of business due to bad quality food or poor customer service.

In conclusion, the author bases his argument on a number of questionable assumptions that are based on facts, which rely solely on the evidence provided by the author. Thus, we cannot accept his line of reasoning as valid.