I've highlighted in blue what I think is
argument. I'll reproduce the stripped version again, and put my comments in
italics.
There
will be a demonstration in Seattle during the meeting of the WTO this month.
Just
a factual statement.
The
delegates of the WTO are not used to having demonstrations accompany their
meetings.
Factual
statement.
The
MAI was derailed by France's withdrawal, which was forced by activism. The
derailment of the MAI has encouraged activists.
Factual
statement. (Note a 'factual statement' is not the same as a fact. It may be
true or not.)
Activists
have been planning demonstrations since September. Opposition comes from
diverse quarters, some better known than others, including Ralph Nader, who is
very visible in organization particularly at colleges and universities.
Factual
statements.
The MAI gives foreigners legal status equal to domestic
investors. Countries choosing to sign such a treaty agree to admit foreign
investment. Direct investment creates jobs. Rich countries have more capital to
invest than the poor countries. So the rich countries will send their capital
to the poor countries. This capital will create wealth and make the poor
nations wealthier.
What
are the arguments here?
There
are three conclusions.
Consider
argument (1): Direct investment creates jobs. What are the premises offered as
proof of this conclusion? There are none. It is assumed without argument.
Argument
2): Rich countries will send their capital to poor countries. Premise: Rich
countries have more capital to invest. Whether this conclusion is true or not,
the argument:
Rich
countries have more capital to invest than poor countries.
Therefore,
rich countries will invest in poor countries.
Is
invalid.
Argument
3): The capital will create wealth and make the poor nations wealthier. Again
no premises are offered as proof. It is assumed without argument.
The activists who are protesting the WTO press for controls on
pollution emissions. Reducing pollution emissions would close factories in the
Third World and harm the poor. The activists who are protesting the WTO are
against biotechnology. Biotechnology is good for poor farmers. Therefore the
activists who are protesting the WTO are harming the poor.
One
argument, really, with two proofs. The conclusion is that activism against the
WTO harms the poor. The premises
And
the parallel argument with the same conclusion:
In
this case, both arguments have valid form. But the premises are pretty fishy,
aren't they?
The activists protest the WTO because they have never been poor.
They cannot understand the poor. They hate the rich corporations that deliver
wealth to the poor.
Factual
statements, and nasty ones at that.
Privatization is unstoppable. Increasing numbers of people are
beginning to recognize privatization is unstoppable.
This
is the appeal to authority, something like saying "god has willed
privatization to happen and everybody knows it"
Poverty is caused by third world elites.
Third World elites retain power by keeping out multinational
corporations. The MAI and liberalization of trade favors multinational
corporations. It therefore hurts third world elites' ability to retain power.
This
one is interesting. The conclusion: Trade liberalization alleviates poverty.
The premises
This
line of reasoning is actually completely valid. Again, what do you think of the
premises?
The
activist groups seek to reduce the power of multinational corporations. They
have forced corporations to justify themselves. But corporations remain in
power.
No
reasoning going on. Narrative or factual statements.
Clinton demanded that labor and environmental policies be in the trade
agreements. He is trying to keep the MAI from being discussed. He is therefore
a weak leader and the activism is partly his fault.
Incorrect
factual statements and an unconnected conclusion. But I suppose it could be
reasoning, as follows:
Although
what Clinton's strength or weakness has to do with anything is not clarified.
The
activists will not be stopped from demonstrating even if their demands are met
because they are doing it for fun.
Just
a statement. Although we could be gracious and pretend it was reasoning as
follows:
Although
these are buried assumptions, not offered, without any corroboration in any
case.
So much for the Wall Street Journal.