Having trouble Analyzing an Argument (logical fallacies)!

Assignment

You will analyze an argument according to classical rhetoric. (You must choose an argument, not a human interest styory or more factual account.) choose an essay you feel is poorly argued and explain why. A good model for this assignment is our class discussion about the article which compared America's problems with gangs with actual subversive invasion.

This exercise is partly a logical fallacy hunt as well as a hunt for other problems you may notice. Your critique should be in the form of a unified 750 word essay complete with Works Cited, if applicable.

This is not about whether you agree with the author. It is only about whether the author knew what he or she was doing. In essence, you will be grading the argument using the same kinds of parameters a teacher might use for English 3.

We pick and choose our article in the Editorials, I have chosen one in Newspaper about "Throw are tax code out"

In the next post, Instead of typing the whole article here, I will type out the paragraphs that I think indicates a fallacy up for discussion, if not I will find another, I need to give a explanation that I'm having trouble with here.

First of all, here are the logical fallacy from a handout given to us.

1. Hasty generalization: a conclusion based on insufficient for unrepresentative evidence.

Non sequitur: a conclusion that does not follow logically from preceding statements or that is based on irrelevant data. Ex: "Mary loves good food; therefore, she will be an excellent chef."

2. False analogy: An analogy points out a similarity between two things that are otherwise dissimilar. Analogies can be an effective means of illustrating a point, but they are not proof.

3. Either....or fallacy: the suggestion that only two alternatives exist when in fact there are more.

4. Faulty cause-and –effect reasoning: Careless thinkers often assume that because one event follows another, the first is the cause of the second. It is a leap to an unjustified conclusion. Ex. "Since Gov. Smith took office; unemployment of minorities in the state has decreased by 7 percent. Gov. Smith should be applauded for reducing unemployment among minorities." The writer must show that Gov. Smith's policies are responsible for the decrease in unemployment; it is not enough to show merely that the decrease followed the governor's taking office.

5. Circular reasoning and begging the question: a way of ducking the issue. Instead of supporting the conclusion with evidence and logic, the writer simply restates the conclusion in different language.

6. Appeals to emotion: Many of the arguments we see in the media strive to win our sympathy rather than our intellectual agreement.

1. The goal of tax reform shouldbe twofold. One isto genterate a more reliable revenue stream. The other isto make the tax code more reflective of California's changing economy,which in turn couldstimulate more growth.

In the above sentence I believe it's an Either or.... fallacy.

2. The industries that drive today's statef economy -- software, information services such as Google, high-tech, diversified manufacturing , movies, video games,professional and business services-- run onentrepreneurship, knowledge, creativity and technology. They produce more services and intangibles than hard goods. Operating in a global market, they face new comptetition from anywhere.

I believe this is false analogy based on how do you compare with storefronts and intangible assest such as websites. For instance website charges shipping and handling now on top of that we need a sales tax added? Not all websites are legit. Some websites are just informational retrieving educational resources.

Here are a few more that I think I found.

The sales tax paid by consumers is also out of step with changing economic reality. Today, consumers spend, an increasing share of their income on such services as 1. healthcare, gyms and gardeners as opposed to such tangible goods as clothes and furniture. But California, unlike most other states, still levies the sales tax on a relatively narrow range of tangible goods while exempting food, utilities and medicine. As a result 2. , the dollars California spend yield about 30% less sales tax than they did in 1979. Even though California has among the highest sales tax rates in the country- the combined state and local rate ranges from 7.29% to 8.25% - the fact that it isn't levied on such things as amusements, repair services, car washing and limos causes revenues to lag behind the state's growth and the need for public services.

I believe this is comparison a false analogy.
Number 1. and the bold print the unlike and as a result! Comparing tangible goods like clothes and furniture with our food, utilities and healthcare providing medicines.

generalization hasting from percentages
Number 2. The author gives a percentage but on the other hand he doesn't mention from what sources, where locations. without showing examples or breakdowns, how he reached his results from his percentages.

A smart tax system does its work of raising needed revenues while attempting to minimize economic harm and advancing certain social goals. California's system doesn't meet that standard. It taxes desirable activities - work, through the income tax, saving and investment - but not some undesirable ones, like pollution and the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. And in defiance of all good economic sense, California has held down fuel taxes, which are a user fee, thereby shifting much of the burden of transportation funding toward the sales tax and bonds paid for with general taxes, and breaking the feeback loop between driving and paying for roads.

I believe the author describes this paragraph a cause and effect analogy.
the author is unrealistically this is the cause, if this happens. How can I explain the analogy here in the cause and effect. Should I mention the consequences?

In the last paragraph or some through the article he grabs your attention by sympathy as appeals to emotion esp. how the title is "Throw out the tax code"

He tends to scare us a bit. He becomes uncertain toward the end of the article.

After I point out some of the fallacies I have to write my critiques and explain three analogies from the paragraphs. I hope I'm detecting them as I type them for discussion here from the Los Angeles Times in the editorials section, where the opinion journals are pg.M8.

I started writing about this article here Am I on the right path?

The author introduces the Title "Throw out the tax code" appealing to emotions. Is the author not clarifying is this a California's state regulation that we have to follow this code or is this a way to confuse the reader in thinking taxes are going to be nonexistant or extinct? The quote in the second column part of the main idea "The state's tax system simply hasn't kept up with this transformation of its economy." The author's appeals the reader with emotion, gives us false analogy, and then utilizes cause and effect through out the newspaper article confusing the readers in Los Angeles Times.

---

First of all I notice how he grabs the readers with appeals to emotion from his title. Our taxes are going to be thrown out. Giving us false hopes not clarifying the reasons why and how are taxes becoming a problem. His scare tactics by this quote, "Politicians don't like to talk about taxes except to brag about cutting them. But with California's widening budget deficit threatening deep cuts in education and other public services, it's difficult to avoid discussions about raising taxes." If we are cutting our education systems that's like taking a candy away from a child, however threatening us in raising our taxes. This is unclear without any reasoning in cutting or raising taxes. Are they going to grab our suits pat us down, when we received our paychecks and dig from are pockets? Perhaps we should charge them with a violation for harassing us.

---

Good afternoon!

OK, in response to your first part: "The goal of tax reform shouldbe twofold. One isto genterate a more reliable revenue stream. The other isto make the tax code more reflective of California's changing economy,which in turn couldstimulate more growth.
In the above sentence I believe it's an Either or.... fallacy."
What other explanations do you see in this statement?

As to your second post, I agree with you; it looks like you are on the right track.

In regards to the third post, I think you should explain it in very black and white terms, as the newspaper author has done. The cause is California's backward taxation system; the effect is the good things are being taxed too much and the bad things not at all. Yes, I would include the consequences in your analysis also.

As for the fourth post, I agree with your application of the emotional theory; the title does sound a bit revolutionary. The author is clearly writing to gain followers.

"Is the author not clarifying is this a California's state regulation that we have to follow this code or is this a way to confuse the reader in thinking taxes are going to be nonexistant or extinct?" I'm not really sure what you want to state here; are you asking a question of your reader? If so, perhaps try to change it around a bit. For example, "Is the author confusing us by stating this is a California law? Is this a way of tricking readers into thinking taxes are going to be done away with?" Does the author mean that citizens will not have to pay taxes any longer, or is he/she stating that current tax money is being wasted?

As to your last paragraph, it does seem that the article depends heavily on him/her scaring the pants off anyone who reads this piece. Confusion is also a scare tactic, make no mistake about it. The less one understands about something the scarier it is.

I do believe you are on the right track; your analysis seems to be coming along quite nicely and you have some very good points. Keep up the good work!

Regards,
Gloria
Moderator, EssayForum.com

How can I shorten and paraphrase a quote into two sentences? I'm having trouble condensing keeping the author's ideas.

I started writing in this paragraph

Lastly, I believe the author describes in this paragraph a cause and effect analogy. His quote from this paragraph, "A smart tax system does its work of raising needed revenues while attempting to minimize economic harm and advancing certain social goals. California's system doesn't meet that standard. It taxes desirable activities - work, through the income tax, saving and investment - but not some undesirable ones, like pollution and the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. And in defiance of all good economic sense, California has held down fuel taxes, which are a user fee, thereby shifting much of the burden of transportation funding toward the sales tax and bonds paid for with general taxes, and breaking the feedback loop between driving and paying for roads." The author is not being realistic in regards to some of consequences here. For example, some of the politicians want the fuel tax that goes towards repairing roads and bridges removed, perhaps we can sell our roads and bridges to Big Oil Co. and they can charge us a toll along with high gas prices. What happens to all the programs that are funded by federal gasoline taxes? If these people any scrap of economic sense, they would know that raising taxes would in fact be the way to lower gas prices moving forward. Then again, this would also require politicians to play hard ball.

---

The last paragraph in the article he grabs your attention by sympathy as appeals to emotion especially, how the title is "[t]hrow out the tax code". He tends to scare us a bit in the beginning and toward the end of his article he becomes uncertain by using the words might and unthinkable many times. This quote, "It might remove the sales tax on manufacturing and research equipment, exempt most businesses from paying property tax on tangible personal property –computers, tables, and stoves—and reassess nonresidential commercial property at market rates. It might cut the overall sales tax rate while broadening its application to such consumer services as cable television, movie, and sports admission, golf courses, amusement parks and personal rentals (parking and mini-storage)." The last paragraph he quotes in question marks, "Unthinkable? No more unthinkable than a Democratic Congress and a Republican President Reagon agreeing on the landmark 1986 tax reform." The author tends to use scare tactics confusing the readers leaving us mysteriously hanging. Less we know and understand the scarier it gets.

---

Third of all, the author utilizes the fallacy hasty generalization giving us percentages. The author quotes, "As a result, the dollars California spends yield about 30% less sales tax than they did in 1979. Even though California has among the highest sales tax rates in the country- the combined state and local rate ranges from 7.29% to 8.25% - the fact that it isn't levied on such things as amusements, repair services, car washing and limos causes revenues to lag behind the state's growth and the need for public services." The author gives a percentage but on the other hand he doesn't mention from what sources, shows examples, figure breakdowns, how he reached his results from his percentages.

Good morning!

As far as chopping down the quotes, unless you are under a word count restraint, I would leave them as it. After all, these are the quotes you are basing your arguments on, so you probably don't want to mess with them too much. You're doing a fine job.

Regards,
Gloria
Moderator, EssayForum.com

My final essay, please check all grammar, punctuation, and word usage. Don't know if I can state a better way in some of sentences structure. Your input is greatly appreciated and I thank you.

Critique Argument on Taxes

---

In the article, "Throw out the tax code," the author, Mark Paul, argues, the problem is the system is broken, that money and influence buy politicians and policy without backing by one of the two major political parties, politicians can't get elected to an office higher than local dog catcher. Where he states in the second column, his main idea "[t]he state's tax system simply hasn't kept up with this transformation of its economy." He grabs the readers attention in his title, "Throw out the tax code," appealing to emotions. The author is not clarifying whether this is California's state regulation that we have to follow or is this way to confuse the reader into thinking taxes are going to become non-existent. The author does not consider taking away the need for big dollars to get elected and perhaps a few right thinking individuals will stand a chance of making a difference. The author's appeal to the reader with emotion, gives us false analogy, hasty generalization, and then utilizes cause and effect and by the end resorts to scare tactics.

---

First of all, he grabs the readers with appeals to emotion from his title. The author is saying that our taxes are going to be thrown out, makes promises that are not kept, giving false hope without clarifying the reasons why and how taxes are becoming a problem. He uses scare tactics with this quote, "Politicians don't like to talk about taxes except to brag about cutting them. But with California's widening budget deficit threatening deep cuts in education and other public services, it's difficult to avoid discussions about raising taxes." The author is harsh when he explains how cruel the politician's actions for cutting our education system, that's horrible way to remove a beneficial program for growth of youngster, however by threatening us in raising our taxes. This is unclear without any reasoning in cutting or raising taxes. The author does not consider any realistic thoughts about the way government should fund social programs that benefit everybody. But, as readers have been confused, can be hard to tell what is a society-benefitting program is, and what is Governor Jeb's cousin's best friend's pet project. The author hurts his argument when he doesn't consider the emotional outburst the readers will have in regards to funding every pet peeve's project when times are good, then see who dares to cut government "programs and services" when times get tough that's how you build a huge debt in a nutshell. The author does not include how some of us cannot do without many of these government programs and services resolving in cut them.

---

Secondly, the author's faulty analogy uses comparison of intangible assets, like internet businesses versus retail merchandise store front. In the following quote he mentions, "The industries that drive today's state economy produce more services and intangibles than hard goods." Not all websites provide products and services. How can taxes apply to intangible assets, when shipping and handling cost is added? The author is not considering the facts that many websites are not always legitimate and the volume of business decreases or increases. It's either a hit or miss. The author also does not mention that websites also can only be a resource for retrieving news media, or communications source for family friends to come together in forums, blogs, and messengers. Another fact the author is not taking into consideration, for example, is that when a music CD purchase is made in music store, a sales tax is added to your receipt. Store fronts have more overhead compared to a website overhead. Compared to downloading and purchasing a CD online instead of sales tax being charged, shipping and handling charge fee is added to your order. Instead of renting a space at a store front, websites are becoming the property of products. The author doesn't consider the facts the website are completely different in business to business. The author hurts his argument by not distinguishing intangible assets that many websites doesn't always generate income or capital gains compared to informative websites that are meant for only educational purposes. So, it would be hard to add sales tax to every website that differs in their businesses.

---

In addition, the author is incorrectly comparing other states services with our income that is increasing spent on services like healthcare, gym and tangible goods versus other states that are levying sales tax, exempting foods, medicines and utilities. The author compares California with other states when he says "how we spend our income on services like healthcare, and gym unlike other states, still levies the sales tax on tangible goods while exempting food, utilities' and medicine." This explains how we are not matching other states, but does not give us any specific locations or details. The author argues unclearly without any specific details why the other states are enforcing sales tax on tangible goods while exempting food, utilities and medicine.
Third of all, the author utilizes the fallacy of hasty generalization giving us percentages. The author doesn't tell us statistic details that give only a small portion which confuses the reader where the percentage is wide range for all states. The author is unclear in regards to results in his percentage consider for only a small portion of services in the whole state of California or mislead by all services in metropolitan area. The author says,
As a result, the dollars California spends yield about 30% less sales tax than they did in 1979. Even though California has among the highest sales tax rates in the country- the combined state and local rate ranges from 7.29% to 8.25% - the fact that it isn't levied on such things as amusements, repair services, car washing and limos causes revenues to lag behind the state's growth and the need for public services.
The author gives a percentage but on the other hand, he doesn't mention from what sources, show examples, figure breakdowns, or tell how he reached his results from his percentages. Without showing any details in his statistic, a reader fails to see where his argument could lead in his results from small/large portion of services is local/statewide.

---

Lastly, the author describes a cause effect relationship that manipulates readers. His quote from this paragraph,
A smart tax system does its work of raising needed revenues while attempting to minimize economic harm and advancing certain social goals. California's system doesn't meet that standard. It taxes desirable activities - work, through the income tax, saving and investment - but not some undesirable ones, like pollution and the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. And in defiance of all good economic sense, California has held down fuel taxes, which are a user fee, thereby shifting much of the burden of transportation funding toward the sales tax and bonds paid for with general taxes, and breaking the feedback loop between driving and paying for roads.
The author is not being realistic in regards to some consequences here. For example, some of the politicians want the fuel tax that goes towards repairing roads and bridges, perhaps we can sell our roads and bridges to big oil companies and they can charge a toll along with high gas prices. What happens to all the programs that are funded by federal gasoline taxes? If these people done any scrap of economic sense, they would know that raising taxes would, in fact, the way to lower gas prices and move forward. Then, again, this would also require politicians to play hard ball. The newspaper author vaguely states the cause is California's backward taxation system; the effect is the good things are being taxed too much and the bad things not at all.

---

The last paragraph in the article grabs your attention by sympathy as appeals to emotion especially, the title "[t]hrow out the tax code". He tends to scare us a bit in the beginning and toward the end of his article he becomes uncertain by using the words "might" and "unthinkable" many times. The author states in this quote,
It might remove the sales tax on manufacturing and research equipment, exempt most businesses from paying property tax on tangible personal property –computers, tables, and stoves—and reassess nonresidential commercial property at market rates. It might cut the overall sales tax rate while broadening its application to such consumer services as cable television, movie, and sports admission, golf courses, amusement parks and personal rentals (parking and mini-storage).

---

Also in the last paragraph, he quotes and uses a question mark, "Unthinkable? No more unthinkable than a Democratic Congress and a Republican President Reagon agreeing on the landmark 1986 tax reform." In this last paragraph, it does seem that the article depends heavily on him/her scaring the pants off anyone who reads this piece. The author intentionally confuses the reader purposely uses scare tactics.

---

Finally, the author recognizes the problem is the system is broken, that money and influence buy politicians and policy without backing by one of the two major political parties, politicians can't get elected to an office higher than local dog catcher. The author mentions, how we are not matching other states, but does not give us any specific locations or reasoning. The author argues unclearly without any specific details why the other states are enforcing sales tax on tangible goods while exempting food, utilities and medicine. The newspaper author vaguely states the cause is California's backward taxation system; the effect is the good things are being taxed too much and the bad things not at all. He tells us if we don't acknowledge the way politicians handles are state taxes, how these issues and conflicts are going to be resolve. The author intentionally confuses the reader purposely uses scare tactics.

---

Paul, Mark "Throw out the tax code." Los Angeles Time's: Opinion. 20 April 2008: M8 +M9.

Good evening!

OK, here are my suggestions:

"In the article, "Throw out the Tax Code, (Put this comma on the outside of your quotation mark.) " the author, Mark Paul, argues, (Remove, add "that") the problem (What problem? State the issue here.) is the system is broken, (Change to a semicolon.) that money and influence buy politicians and policy without backing by one of the two major political parties, politicians can't get elected to an office higher than local dog catcher(Why not?) . Where he states in the second column, his main idea "[t]he state's tax system simply hasn't kept up with this transformation of its economy." Insert your citation here. He grabs the readers attention in his title, "Throw out the tax code (Capitalize) ," appealing to emotions. The author is not clarifying whether this is California's state regulation that we have to follow or is this (Change to "a") way to confuse the reader into thinking taxes are going to become non-existent. The author does not consider taking away the need for big dollars to get elected and perhaps a few right thinking individuals will stand a chance of making a difference. The author's appeals to the reader with emotion, gives us false analogy, hasty generalization, and then utilizes cause and effect and by the end resorts to scare tactics.

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

First of all, he grabs the readers with appeals to emotion from his title. The author is saying that our taxes are going to be thrown out, makes promises that are not kept, giving false hope without clarifying the reasons why and how taxes are becoming a problem. He uses scare tactics with this quote, "Politicians don't like to talk about taxes except to brag about cutting them. But with California's widening budget deficit threatening deep cuts in education and other public services, it's difficult to avoid discussions about raising taxes." Insert your citation here. The author is harsh when he explains how cruel the politician's actions (Insert "are", then a comma, and remove "for" for cutting our education system, that's horrible way to remove a beneficial program for growth of youngsters, (Remove this comma and also remove "however".) however by threatening us in raising our taxes. This is unclear without any reasoning in cutting or raising taxes. The author does not consider any realistic thoughts about the way government should fund social programs that benefit everybody. But, as readers have been confused, (Insert "it") can be hard to tell what is a society-benefitting program is (Remove) , and what is Governor Jeb's cousin's best friend's pet project. The author hurts his argument when he doesn't consider the emotional outburst the readers will have in regards to funding every pet peeve's project when times are good, then see who dares to cut government "programs and services" when times get tough; that's how you build a huge debt in a nutshell. The author does not include how some of us cannot do without many of these government programs and services resolving in cut them. (Rewrite to something like, "...if they are cut."

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

Secondly, the author's faulty analogy uses (Insert "a") comparison of intangible assets, like internet businesses versus retail merchandise store front (Rearrange to "...storefront retail merchandisers" . In the following quote he mentions, "The industries that drive today's state economy produce more services and intangibles than hard goods." Cite your source here. Not all websites provide products and services. How can taxes apply to intangible assets, when shipping and handling costs is (Change to "are") added? The author is not considering the facts that many websites are not always legitimate and the volume of business decreases or increases. It's either a hit or miss. The author also does not mention that websites also (Change to something like "sometimes") can only be a resource for retrieving news media, or as a communications source for family friends to come together in forums, blogs, and messengers. Another fact the author is not taking into consideration, for example, is that when a music CD purchase is made in a music store, a sales tax is added to your receipt. Store fronts have more overhead compared to a website overhead. Compared to downloading and purchasing a CD online instead of sales tax being charged, shipping and handling charge fees is (Change to "are".) added to your order. Instead of renting a (Remove) space at a store front, websites are becoming the property of products. The author doesn't consider the facts the websites are completely different in business to business. The author hurts his argument by not distinguishing intangible assets that many websites doesn't always generate income or capital gains compared to informative websites that are meant for only educational purposes. So, it would be hard to add sales tax to every website that differs in their businesses.

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

In addition, the author is incorrectly comparing other states services with our income that is increasingly spent on services like healthcare, gym (???-Can you clarify this?) and tangible goods versus other states that are levying sales tax, exempting foods, medicines and utilities. The author compares California with other states when he says "how we spend our income on services like healthcare, and gym unlike other states, still levies the sales tax on tangible goods while exempting food, utilities' and medicine." (Cite your reference here.) This explains how we are not matching other states, but does not give us any specific locations or details. The author argues unclearly without any specific details why the other states are enforcing sales tax on tangible goods while exempting food, utilities and medicine.
Third of all, the author utilizes the fallacy of hasty generalization giving us percentages. The author doesn't tell us statistic details that (Change to "but") (Add "only") gives only a small portion which confuses the reader where the percentage is a wide range for all states. The author is unclear in regards to results in his percentage consider (Change to "considerations".) for only a small portion of services in the whole state of California or mislead by all services in metropolitan area. The author says,
"As a result, the dollars California spends yield about 30% less sales tax than they did in 1979. Even though California has among the highest sales tax rates in the country- the combined state and local rate ranges from 7.29% to 8.25% - the fact that it isn't levied on such things as amusements, repair services, car washing and limos causes revenues to lag behind the state's growth and the need for public services." (Insert your citation here.)
The author gives a percentage but on the other hand, he doesn't mention from what sources, show examples, figure breakdowns, or tell how he reached his results from his percentages. Without showing any details in his statistics, a reader fails to see where his argument could lead in his results from small/large portion of services is local/statewide.

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

Lastly, the author describes a cause and effect relationship that manipulates readers. His quote from this paragraph,
"A smart tax system does its work of raising needed revenues while attempting to minimize economic harm and advancing certain social goals. California's system doesn't meet that standard. It taxes desirable activities - work, through the income tax, saving and investment - but not some undesirable ones, like pollution and the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. And in defiance of all good economic sense, California has held down fuel taxes, which are a user fee, thereby shifting much of the burden of transportation funding toward the sales tax and bonds paid for with general taxes, and breaking the feedback loop between driving and paying for roads. " (Cite your source here.)
The author is not being realistic in regards to some consequences here. For example, some of the politicians want the fuel tax that goes towards repairing roads and bridges, (Change to a semicolon) perhaps we can sell our roads and bridges to big oil companies and they can charge a toll along with high gas prices. What happens to all the programs that are funded by federal gasoline taxes? If these people done (Change to something like "possessed" or "had") any (Change to "a"). scrap of economic sense, they would know that raising taxes would, in fact, be the way to lower gas prices and move forward. Then, again, this would also require politicians to play hard ball. The newspaper author vaguely states the cause is California's backward taxation system; the effect is the good things are being taxed too much and the bad things not at all.

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

The last paragraph in the article grabs your attention by sympathy as appeals to emotion; especially, the title "[t]hrow out the tax code (This should be capitalized: "Throw out the Tax Code") ". He tends to scare us a bit in the beginning and toward the end of his article; he becomes uncertain by using the words "might" and "unthinkable" many times. The author states in this quote,
"It might remove the sales tax on manufacturing and research equipment, exempt most businesses from paying property tax on tangible personal property –computers, tables, and stoves—and reassess nonresidential commercial property at market rates. It might cut the overall sales tax rate while broadening its application to such consumer services as cable television, movie, and sports admission, golf courses, amusement parks and personal rentals (parking and mini-storage). " Cite your source here.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

Also in the last paragraph, he quotes and uses a question mark,(Change to a semicolon.) "Unthinkable? No more unthinkable than a Democratic Congress and a Republican President Reagon agreeing on the landmark 1986 tax reform." Cite your source here. In this last paragraph, it does seem that the article depends heavily on him/her scaring the pants off anyone who reads this piece. The author intentionally confuses the reader and purposely uses scare tactics.

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

Finally, the author recognizes the problem is the system is broken, that money and influence buy (Change to "by".) politicians and policy without backing by one of the two major political parties, politicians can't get elected to an office higher than local dog catcher See my notes above.) . The author mentions, (Remove) how we are not matching other states, but does not give us any specific locations or reasoning. The author argues unclearly without any specific details why the other states are enforcing sales tax on tangible goods while exempting food, utilities and medicine. The newspaper author vaguely states the cause is California's backward taxation system; the effect is the good things are being taxed too much and the bad things not at all. He tells us if we don't acknowledge the way politicians handles (Change to "handle".) are (Change to "our".) state taxes, how are these issues and conflicts are going to be resolve (...going to be resolved?) . The author intentionally confuses the reader and purposely uses scare tactics.

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

Paul, Mark "Throw out the tax code." Los Angeles Time's: Opinion. 20 April 2008: M8 +M9."
What citation style are you required to use?

Nice work!

Regards,
Gloria
Moderator, EssayForum.com