Analysis 5

Directions:  Use Rationale 2.0 to fully reconstruct the reasoning of the article below.  Use the advanced reasoning format and write all principles.  Finish this assignment by identifying the subject, the issue(s), and one clear occurrence of four of the following six fallacies.  (More than four of these fallacies occur, but only submit your best four.)  Staple the page below to the Rationale 2.0 printout, with the Rationale 2.0 printout in back.   Do not attach the article itself.  Be sure to delete the two fallacy definitions and corresponding MOI’s that you do not use.

•	Straw Man
•	Equivocation
•	Innuendo
•	Red Herring
•	Weak Comparison
•	Weak Distinction

Why we need higher gas prices
by  Anne Fenton Ward

If you happen to be in public office here is a way to get yourself impeached in a heartbeat:  Announce your support for raising the gasoline tax.  Most Americans would rather give up their right to vote then give up the convenience of cheap gas.  Yet most economists agree that a significant hike in the federal gas tax is the simplest, most effective and least painful way to deal with an enormous range of social and political problems. Consider some of the most salient:  global warming, war in the Middle East, gridlock, highway safety, bad roads, the weak dollar, skyrocketing public debt.  All of these and more are directly related to the low cost of fuel.  

Let’s start with a basic economics lesson.  

First, why do I say that the price of gas is too low when almost every consumer stipulates that it is unbearably high?  The answer is that consumers have no way of knowing what the price of a product should be.  When they say that something is too expensive, they are just saying that paying these prices is difficult for them given the way they like to live their lives. The reason economists say that gas is too cheap is this: In a properly functioning market the price we pay for a product reflects the cost of producing, delivering, and consuming it.  For example, when you buy lumber at Home Depot the amount you pay should reflect, among other things, the cost to the lumber company of planting new trees.  Currently, when you burn gas you impose a cost on the environment that is not reflected in the price at the pump.  Our habits are costing the environment its health and we’re not paying its medical bills.  

Second, higher prices almost always lead to diminished consumption.  As I’ll argue below, lowering our consumption of fossil fuels is the key to most of the problems mentioned above.  Of course, it would be lovely if people simply voluntarily used less of an affordable product for the good of the planet, but for issues so close to the pocketbook, volunteerism simply doesn’t work.  This is not to say that people are fundamentally selfish.  It’s just that most people almost never sacrifice their own financial interests for the benefit of others.

There is no longer any serious doubt that global warming is anthropogenic.  It is caused by humans burning a tremendous amount of fossil fuel, a cost that is manifesting itself in a diverse range of destructive phenomena:  extended droughts, devastating storms, the melting of the polar ice cap, catastrophic flooding, and the rapid spread of pests and diseases.  Vehicle emissions are the second largest cause of global warming, contributing 1.5 billion tons of C02 annually in the U.S alone. There are different ways to bring global warming under control.  For example, we can develop alternative fuels that do not increase atmospheric C02  or develop vehicles that burn less or no fossil fuel at all.  However, none of this can happen to any appreciable extent in the absence of demand, and there will be no demand while fossil fuel prices remain low enough to permit Americans to drive the least fuel efficient cars on the planet.

War in the Middle East obviously has a variety of causes, but one of these is our need to guarantee a reliable supply of oil.  (If you doubt this at all, then simply ask yourselves why we choose to use our military might in Iraq rather than, say, Burma.  The Burmese are equally oppressed, and probably much easier to help. Unfortunately, they have nothing we really need.)  The U.S. simply can not tolerate political regimes hostile to U.S. interests with the ability to create havoc in U.S. markets.  Raising fuel prices means that we will ultimately be less reliant on foreign oil, that less public money will be spent making war, and that American military personnel will not die fighting for cheap gas.

Traffic congestion and poorly maintained roads are two of the most common complaints of American commuters, and it takes no great insight to realize that both are connected to the number of vehicles on the road.  There are many ways to get around the world besides driving passenger cars with no passengers in them.  Granted, in America these alternatives are very poorly developed, but that is simply because demand is low.  If we increase fuel prices we thereby increase the quality, availability and affordability of alternative means of transportation.  

The federal debt is at historic highs for a reason:  Americans are simply unwilling to pay the taxes required to finance the activities of their public institutions.  Some of these activities we may object to on moral or ideological grounds, but for the most part we simply lack the strength to face our addiction. Rather than pay our own way, we choose to mortgage our children’s future selling billions of dollars worth of government bonds to foreign investors every year.  But as it has become increasingly obvious to our creditors that America may never have the ability to pay back its loans, the value of the dollar has fallen steadily, and along with it the purchasing power of the American consumer.  Although a federal gas tax would not eliminate the deficit- fuel consumption is only one aspect of American profligacy, after all- it would certainly help.  

Are there any good reasons not to raise gas taxes?  Not really.  Given the current catastrophic state of our economy one might argue that what we need now is for taxes to be reduced in order to stimulate consumer spending.  That is actually correct, but that doesn’t mean that gas taxes need to be reduced.  We can raise gas taxes and use the increased revenue to make even larger cuts in federal income taxes than we could have done otherwise.

 People worry that higher gas taxes will generate higher prices on other consumer items, since fuel is needed to make and deliver them.  However, fuel costs are actually just a small fraction of the cost of production.  Prices of other commodities will rise marginally if at all.  Politicians will wring their hands about the gas tax being regressive, leaving us to wonder why they choose this specific issue to become alarmed about the plight of the poor.  

The case for raising the gasoline tax (currently at 18.4 cents a gallon, in case you were wondering) is almost ridiculously strong.  Unfortunately, the political will to do it is not.  Although the slightly higher prices we are now paying (due, ironically, to the Middle East conflict) has helped to produce some interest in alternative energy sources and modes of transportation, we are still too much in denial to be able to welcome a presidential candidate who will square up and tell us frankly that there is no inalienable right to cheap gas.  Failing a major change of heart, the best thing that can happen is for oil companies to raise the price of fuel and take the profits for themselves.  It may not be the most constructive place for the money to go, but it will still help to fuel interest in saving energy.

(Scroll down for analysis template.)

Analysis of “Why we need higher gas prices” 

Introduction

1.  The subject of this article is  
2.  The main issue of this article is 

Criticism

The following logical errors occur in this article.

Straw Man

Definition: Attempting to discredit a view (or practice) by criticizing a weak version of it or the reasoning given in support of it.

MOI: Identify both the original view and the weak version of that view.  Show (a) why the weak version is a version of the view  and (b) why it  is weak.

Analysis:  

Innuendo
Definition:  Exploiting contextual assumptions to suggest a conclusion that has been neither stated nor logically implied, when there are reasons for doubting that one would be willing to claim it explicitly.
MOI:  Identify the suggested conclusion, showing how, in the given context, it might be reasonably inferred despite the fact that it was neither stated nor implied.  Give reasons for doubting that its author would claim it explicitly.
Analysis:   

Equivocation

Definition: Using a word or expression in a sense that is alien to the given context without adequate notice or justification.

MOI:  Identify the word or expression in question and identify the two different senses that have been equivocated upon:  (1) the sense that would normally be assumed in the given context and (2) the sense that is being assigned without adequate notice or justification.

Analysis:   

Red Herring
Definition:  Distracting attention from an issue by confusing it with a different issue that is irrelevant or only superficially related to the one at hand.
MOI:  Identify the issue at hand and identify the irrelevant issue being introduced.  Show why the new issue is irrelevant and why introducing the irrelevant issue has the effect of confusing the two issues, rather than simply explicitly refocusing attention on the new issue.
Analysis:

Weak Comparison 
Definition: Basing a conclusion on an alleged similarity between two or more things when it is not clear that the similarity in question is (a) sufficiently strong or (b) sufficiently relevant to the context to provide adequate support for conclusion.
MOI:  Explicitly identify the similarity in question and identify why you think it is insufficiently strong or insufficiently relevant to the context to warrant the conclusion.
Analysis:

Weak Distinction
Definition:  Basing a conclusion on an alleged distinction between two or more things when it is not clear that the distinction in question is (a) sufficiently strong or (b) sufficiently relevant to the context to provide adequate support the conclusion.
MOI:  Explicitly identify the distinction in question and identify why you think it is insufficiently strong or insufficiently relevant to the context to adequately support the conclusion.
Analysis: