Sample English Essay Paper on Analysis of Fallacies in Published Arguments Concerning Ballot Measures

Proposition 1 – which Authorizes Bonds to Fund Specified Housing Assistance Programs Legislative Statue – provides a framework of evaluating developmental project. According to this propositions, funds will be borrowed from the public (in form of bonds) as a means of sourcing capital for housing projects. The identified beneficiaries of these programs will mainly include the veterans and the physically challenged population in California. This analysis aims at pinpointing fallacies on both arguments in Proposition 1 which basically concern ballot measures.

The first argument in favor of Proposition 1 claims that bonds will be used to fund housing projects that are safe and affordable for victims of domestic violence.  The fallacy in this argument is engulfed in the fact that domestic violence should be addressed from all angles – including social and legal perspectives. Victims of domestic violence have, traditionally, included women and children. However, recent research indicate that modern domestic violence is adversely affecting males or men at a significant rate (Lee, Taehoon and Choongwan 129). Consequently, the beneficiary of this proposition will sideline a given section of domestic violence victims – who are men in majority. This argument should have adopted legislative support on existing gender laws that recognizes the significant of gender equality in economic growth.

The second argument in favor of this proposition aims at providing housing programs that reward hardworking families with respect to areas of employment. In other terms, this argument states that hardworking families should live where they work as a symbol of improving productivity and lifestyle in terms of accommodation. This is fallacious as it fails to provide a standardized measure of determining hardworking families. Such a program might encounter implementation challenges if such standards of hardworking citizens are not pre-defined clearly. Consequently, sourcing funds from the public in form of bonds could seem unfair to some citizens who might fear that they are not benefiting for the program yet they consider themselves hardworking citizens. A mitigation measure that provides standard levels of hardworking citizens and their respective employment areas should have been integrated in the argument.

Funding housing projects using public bonds is an alternative way of sourcing for revenue in most economies. However, this is an economic strategy that is adopted when a government runs out of funding options at a particular given moment in time (Estes and Astrid 21). This proposition seems to be sourcing funds through bonds, yet housing taxation could perform the same role as bonds. The fallacy behind this argument happens to be the conflict roles of funding for housing projects using either bonds or taxes. Taxes should be used for their predetermined roles and responsibilities with financial exceptions as decided by the executive arm of the government.

The funding aspect of housing projects from public bonds has also presented a dilemma on the repayment process. Public bonds are a source of government revenues whose repayment process might take decades before a debt is cleared. The animosity that arises between a reigning government and the public is used as a primary requirement of approval before public debt is serviced (Lee, Taehoon and Choongwan 132). The legislative arm of the government ensures that public participation is integrated in the process for inclusivity purposes. Nevertheless, this proposition aims at funding housing projects through bonds that might be repaid by future generations. The essence of information awareness in a public should be used to avoid unnecessary taxation.

Works Cited

Estes, Jim, and Astrid Shiel. “Tobacco Settlement Bonds: a Critical Analysis of 9 States and 3   Territories.” Pan-Pacific Journal of Business Research 6.1 (2015): 21.

Lee, Minhyun, Taehoon Hong, and Choongwan Koo. “An economic impact analysis of state             solar incentives for improving financial performance of residential solar photovoltaic    systems in the United States.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016):       590-607.