Choose an editorial article from within the past 5 years (An editorial is an article that presents the writer's opinion on an issue supported with facts) from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or browse the library and choose an editorial that addresses a business issue that interests you. Instructions:
Write an summary describing the following:
Citation of the article and a brief summary of its contents
What are the premise(s) in the article?
What evidence is presented? Is it credible?
Can you independently verify the evidence presented?
How are counterarguments addressed?
Does the writer represent a particular interest?
How is language used to develop the argument?
Do you detect any errors in knowledge, evidence, or thinking?
Does the writer use any types of appeals or commit any fallacies?
Overall, how compelling is this article?
Evidence and Credibility
The author presents several types of evidence. Porter cites the COVID-19 pandemic as a prime example of global supply chain fragility. He also mentions the increased geopolitical risks from relying on single-source suppliers in countries like China. The article refers to specific industry impacts, such as the shortages in the automotive and technology sectors. The evidence is credible; the pandemic's impact on supply chains is well-documented, and geopolitical tensions are a widely reported fact. The sources are broad economic trends rather than specific, unverifiable statistics.
Independent Verification
Yes, the evidence is independently verifiable. News articles, economic reports, and company financial statements from the past few years extensively detail the supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic, as well as the ongoing effects of geopolitical tensions. One could easily find reports from organizations like the World Bank or industry-specific trade associations to confirm these trends.
Counterarguments
The article implicitly addresses the main counterargument: the higher cost of domestic manufacturing. It counters this by framing the issue as a choice between short-term savings and long-term stability. The author implies that companies that prioritize immediate cost-cutting by relying on fragile supply chains are making a shortsighted decision. However, it does not explicitly present or then refute a direct counterargument from an opposing viewpoint, such as a business leader arguing for the continued use of low-cost foreign labor.
Writer's Interest
The writer, Eduardo Porter, is a well-known economic journalist for The New York Times. His interest appears to be in promoting economic resilience and public policy that benefits the broader American economy. He does not seem to represent a specific corporate or political interest but rather an informed journalistic perspective on a significant economic issue.
Language Use
The language used is persuasive and grounded in economic terminology. Porter uses words like "vulnerability," "resilience," "imperative," and "sound business decision" to frame the issue in terms that resonate with a business audience. He employs a clear, logical structure, moving from problem identification (supply chain fragility) to a proposed solution (domestic investment) and its benefits. The tone is authoritative and serious.
Sample Answer
Article Citation and Summary
Citation: Porter, E. (2023, June 29). The Business Case for Fixing the U.S. Supply Chain. The New York Times.
Summary: This editorial argues that while recent supply chain disruptions have been a significant challenge for American businesses, they also present a crucial opportunity. The author contends that investing in a more resilient, localized, and technologically advanced supply chain is not just a matter of national security or public good, but a sound financial decision for companies.
Article Analysis
Premise(s)
The main premise is that strengthening the U.S. supply chain is a business imperative, not just a government or social responsibility. The article asserts that the long-term costs of supply chain vulnerabilities, such as delays, shortages, and reputational damage, outweigh the short-term costs of investing in domestic production and diversified sourcing. It also suggests that a more robust supply chain will create new business opportunities and competitive advantages.