The following appeared as a part of an advertisement for Adams, who is seeking reelection as governor:"Reelect Adams, and you will be voting for proven leadership in improving the state's economy. Ov

Adam seems to be the best candidate you can get, he created jobs, promoted entrepreneurship and earned trust from all the electors. Zabulon is Satan, who opposes all Adam’s key policies. These arguments seem valid and sounding in an election campaign, but to earn more votes, you need the support from the GOP.

In initiation, workers’ wage is affected by so many reasons, Adams can’t claim it all. There are so many reason a worker’s wage can increase, for example, improving national economy, federal job subsidy, aggressive unionization and maybe only nominal wage increase. Maybe 70% of workers increased their wage, 30% of workers may lost their jobs. If the workers voted for Adams doesn’t see a raise, the workers benefited from better pay are not Adams’ base.

To ignite, more jobs and corporate headquarters are not good indicators of general economy. By issuing tax cut and capitalism welfare, any place can attract corporate headquarters, by paying companies. Jobs also differ greatly among each other, low wage, back-breaking, part time jobs are only 1/3 or even 1/5 as good as full time unionized jobs. Adams’ constituency will not react kindly to this Geffen job substitution. Adams must prove the vacancies he brought to the state are high quality, family friendly and community nourishing jobs.

Finally, the poll indicates that six new corporations located in the state, but fails to indicate if any corporations had left the state during the same period. Next, the poll cited by the author is described in the vaguest possible terms. The ad does not indicate who conducted the poll, who responded or how the poll was conducted. Until these questions are answered, the survey results are worthless as evidence for public opinion about Adams or his economic policies.

Finally, while we have only vague and possibly distorted evidence that the state is better off with Adams, we have absolutely no evidence that it would be worse off with Zebulon. Given that the state economy is good now, none of the author's reasons establishes that Adams is the cause of this nor do they establish that the state wouldn't be even better off with someone else in office.

In conclusion, this argument is weak. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide additional information about the adequacy of state workers' pay raises, the effect of the 5,000 jobs on the state's employment picture, the overall growth of corporations in the state and other features of the state economy. Also, the author must support the claims that Adams' actions have caused any economic improvement and that in the future Adams will impart more economic benefit than would Zebulon do.