Re-elect Adams. and you will be voting for proven leadership in improving the state's economy. Over the past year alone, 70 percent of the state's workers have has increases in their wages, 5000 new jobs have been created, and six corporations have locate

According to the passage, the author encourages the public to vote for Adams, because, at his previous term, 70% of the workers' wages have increased, 5000 new jobs have been created, and six corporations have set up their headquarter in this state. Furthermore, the author also attacks the opponent’s policy, simply stating that the opposing party will lead the state in the wrong direction, since his policy contradicts with that of Adams. However, at first glance, the argument seems to be somewhat convincing, but further consideration reflects that it is based on some reasoning flaws, such as ignoring to illustrate the representativeness of the statistic data and adopting faulty assumption.

First, the author doesn’t clearly identify whether the statistics he cites are representative, and whether the information comes from an non-partial and reliable sources. If the data are solely derived from the campaign of Adams without any third-party confirmation, the argument may suffer from some criticism of not being objective enough to represent the reality. Moreover, the author doesn’t clarify the exact increase in wages, the types of jobs created, and the profits made from having six corporations in the state. Thus, the statistical evidence lacks strong supportive details to substantiate the author’s argument.

Second, the author wrongly assumes that the opposing candidate will not lead the state onto the right path since his proposed policy differs from that of Adams. The statement cannot serve as convincing evidence, because the author doesn’t take time to elaborate the difference between the policies of the two candidates. No detailed information regarding the opposing party has been offered for readers and voters to judge whether the policy of Adams is indeed superior to that of the opponent. Thus, more supporting details are needed to make effective evaluation on both parties’ policies.

In conclusion, the argument is not well-reasoned nor logical. If the author can avoid the reasoning flaws mentioned above, the argument will be much more strengthened, and therefore, more convincing.