The author makes certain dubious assumptionaboutthe impact of beach-accessfees. On the one hand, the authorignores the possibility that charging fees might deter so many tourists thatTria would be worse off overall. On the other hand,perhaps the vast majority of Tria’s tourists and residents alike would happilypay for beach access, in which caseTriabeaches would continue to be no lesscrowded than they are now. Under eitherscenario, adopting the author’s proposal might harm, rather than benefit,Tria’s tourist industry in the long run.
The editorial goes on to cite studies which “attest to the value” ofallowing students to hear books read aloud. However, as it standsthis evidence is far too vague to supportthe editorial’sconclusion; we are not informed whether the “value” relates specifically toreading skills. Common sense tells me thatwhile audiocassettes can help any person learn facts and understand concepts, askill such as reading can only be learned by practicing the skill itself.
The memo fails to indicate whether other magazines experienced an increaseof a decrease in sales by reducing their emphasis on international news. It ispossible, for instance, that the other magazines experienced declining saleseven for issues focusing only on demostic news. If so, then the publisher’srecommendation would make little sense.On the other hand, if other magazines experienced the same correlation betweencover story and sales volume, this fact would lendconsiderable support to the publisher’s conclusion thatinternational cover stories were responsible for poor sales.
Theeditorial seems to make two irreconcilable claims.One is that the merger will result inthe elimination of certain duplicative jobs; theother is that no current municipal employee will become umemployedas a result of the merger. The editorial fails to consider that eliminatingduplicative jobs would decrease the aggregate number of current municipalemployees unless enough new jobs are created to offset the decrease, and thatnew jobs would in turn add to administrative costs. Thus,as it stands the argument is self-contradictory, and the author must eithermodify it by choosing between two competing objectives—preservingcurrent employment levels and cutting costs—orsomehow reconcile these two objective