The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown:"If we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees, we need to encourage our residents to recycle more. Late last year, our neighboring town, Hayesworth, passed a

In order to analyze the argument properly, certain facts and figures are needed, The lack of these data makes the argument untenable. Moreover the author makes fallacious assumptions. Recycling law will have the same ramifications on the disposal rates in Masontown as it had in Hayesworth, is one such assumptions. Due to these errors, the argument lacks credibility.

The author first assumes that to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees, the residents should be encouraged to recycle more. However he doesn't give any specific data about the money saved by recycling. How much money will be saved by reusing Are there any other means to reduce the municipal garbage fees? These questions need to be addressed in order to evaluate the recommendation.

Next the author mentions Hayesworth town. In Hayesworth a law was passed that required all households to recycle paper and glass or pay a fine. This lead to an a drop in amount of garbage disposal costs. However the author uses vague terminology which adds an element of ambiguity. How much was the fine? How much did the expense of garbage disposal curtailed? The answers to these question can help achieve a better understanding of the situation.

Moreover the author proposes that an advertising campaign will encourage the residents to recycle. To make this proposition the author makes an unwarranted assumption that the Masontown will have the same upshot (due to recycling) as Hayesworth town. However in order to validate the claim the author should have presented evidences that explicitly show the similarity between the towns. Like the same population size or same demographic features. This could have bolstered author's argument.

Finally the concludes that just by advertising an campaign, the Masontown would save money on disposal waste. The author neglects to consider the efficacy of the campaign. Perhaps the campaign was effective,people started reprocessing more and subsequently capital was preserved. Alternatively the campaign could also be ineffectual in garnering public attention. In such instance, the money would not be saved. This belies the author's conclusion. How effective is the campaign? The response to this query is imperative in appraising the argument.

Thus as a whole, the argument is replete with unreasonable assumptions. The suppositions are neither supported by evidences nor are they logically sound. Due to these factors the author's recommendation that by implementing an advertising campaign, money could be salvaged, becomes incredible.