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. Last year, our neighboring town, Hayesworth, passed a law

The author of this letter claims that in order for Masontown to save money in garbage disposal fees, the town must entice their residents to recycle more. This writer reasons that since the neighboring town, Hayesworth, put restrictions on recycling, that their garbage disposal fees have plumeted after one year of its implementation. Also, they reason that an advertising campaign would encourage Masontown's residents to recycle and thus, the town would save money on garbage disposal fees. The argument fails to mention key answers to questions that are integral to its evaluation. The conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence; therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several major flaws.

First, the writer claims that a neighboring town has decreased their disposal fees by passing a law that forces people to recycle or pay a fine. With this is mind, they conclude that Masontown would benefit from encouraging their residents to recycle. In order to determine if Hayesworth can be used as an indicator, there are many questions that need to be answered. What data suggests that whatever happens in Hayesworth will mirror what will happen in Masontown? Just because something happens in a nearby city doesn't necessarily mean it will happen in Masontown. Also, the author fails to recognize the stark difference between encouraging people to recycle and a law passed that fines people when they do not recycle. If Hayesworth is going to be an example for Masontown in how they encourage their residents to recycle, we should know if Masontown plans on passing laws to fine residents for recycling or not.

Second, the letter suggests that the implementation of Hayesworth's recycling law is why after one year their city's disposal fees dropped. What this argument fails to mention is any evidence to back up the notion that there were no other reasons why the city's disposal fees plumeted. For all we know maybe the majority of residents left the city and there was much less work in general for the disposal workers to be in contact with. To make a recommentation, we need to know what exactly caused the disposal fees to be lower the year after the implementation of their law.

Third, the author assumes that an advertising campaign would undoubtably entice Masontown's residents to recycle. Where is the evidence for this? While this may come to fruition, we cannot assume that just because advertising is meant to encourage and modify behaviors, that behaviors would actually result. We need specific evidence that elucidates the reason behind the claim that advertising will one hundred percent of the time equate to behavior changes.

In summary, the argument in its current state is unsound and questionable. The author would considerably strengthen the argument by clearly mentioning relevant answers to specific questions. In order to assess the merit of an argument, one must have full knowledge of all of the contributing factors.