Read the argument and the instructions that follow it, and then make any notes that will help you plan your response. Write your response on a separate sheet of paper. If possible, type your essay on a word processor.
An economist addressed the following statement to a group of economists and policy makers:
Our federal government often employs subsidies and trade measures to protect the well-being of certain traditional industries, such as steel production and agriculture, because these industries have been seen as vital to the nation’s interests. In recent decades, however, the nation’s economy has grown far more from the development of newer, information-oriented industries such as pharmaceuticals, computer technology, and media. These newer industries promise more growth in personal income and tax revenue than do the older industries, and they are generally less harmful to the environment. It is wrong, therefore, for the federal government to protect and subsidize traditional industries such as steel and agriculture, when such protectionist practices may delay workers in these traditional industries from moving to newer sectors of the economy that can offer greater benefits to workers and to the nation as a whole.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative examples or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
