Subjectivity is Subjective

A good argument can be a powerful tool, particularly in the world of science. Whether it exists in the form of a political debate or a newspaper editorial, an argument must be supported by strong evidence in order to be persuasive. An example of a poor argument is the article “AirCare serves no purpose, other than to annoy motorists” (6 November 2010) by Harvey Enchin, in which the author argues that the vehicle emissions testing program AirCare does not accomplish anything and should no longer be a financial burden on motorists. The author’s evidence to support this argument is weak in many parts of the article, particularly when he discusses the program’s economic and environmental impacts, as well as the impacts on public health.

The first flaw in the author’s argument appears when he attempts to point out a conflict of interests surrounding the program’s financial benefits. He is somewhat unclear, writing:

“Given that the review committee is composed of members from the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport, Translink… and Metro Vancouver, a thumbs-up appears to be a slam-dunk.” (Enchin 2010)

Although the last statement’s exact meaning is slightly ambiguous, it is obvious that the author thinks the review committee is somewhat biased, for he emphasizes that no input was asked of the B.C. Taxi Association, the B.C. Trucking Association, or any other organization that would be able to speak on behalf of motorists. The author intends to bring to attention that although it may appear that the committee members’ concern is for the environment, they are also concerned with the positive economic impact AirCare has on their organizations. According to the author, it is unjust that no motorists are represented on the committee, and he goes on to list the economic benefits to the companies who are on the committee. This evidence is flawed. Firstly, the claim that no motorists are represented on the committee is false. The author himself states that Translink is a part of the committee, and Translink is the transportation network of the region; the company owns many vehicles and obviously represents some motorists, so their presence on the committee disproves the author’s evidence. It may be the case that AirCare doesn’t affect bus-owners, but the author does not make this obvious and there is no reason why it wouldn’t if it also affects truck- and taxi-owners. Even when the author sheds light on the economic benefits resulting from the program, he does not state that there is a conflict of interests or that a goal of employment caused by the program is a justified reason for its discontinuation; he simply states the facts with the intention that this will be implied. Economic gain, however, can easily be construed as a good thing. This section of the article is meant to demonstrate how AirCare’s economic impact makes it a useless program, but due to his lack of clarity and conflicting evidence the author’s argument does not anticipate any objections and is incapable of addressing opposition.

The author’s next point about the program’s environmental impact is similarly weak, as the only information it presents is irrelevant. Enchin (2010) includes statistics surrounding the program’s positive effects on the environment, such as the fact that 90% of the program’s emission reduction is carbon monoxide (CO). The evidence offered in this part of the article builds up to the fact that a report analyzing the program admits that its reduction of greenhouse gases is negligible. This, however, is not proof that AirCare serves no environmentally relevant purpose, for the author himself states that the program’s intention is to reduce CO, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides, only one of which is a greenhouse gas. Keeping in mind that 90% of the reductions are of CO, and that CO is not a greenhouse gas, it follows that total reduction of greenhouse gases is negligible; this is not the main focus of the program. Thus, the fact that AirCare reduces very little greenhouse gas emissions is unrelated to author’s argument. Another irrelevant statistic that Enchin (2010) uses to imply AirCare’s ineptness is the cost of carbon dioxide (CO₂) reduction, which is about $55.00 per tonne. The author himself lists the target pollutants of the program and CO₂ is not one of them, so it is unclear why this cost is mentioned. The only explanation the author gives for its inclusion is that it is “interesting to note”. Again, these apparent contradictions and vague implications cannot be used to support an argument, and without any evidence the argument unable to stand up to objections.

The next paragraph centres around AirCare’s beneficial impact on public health, which the author believes is too miniscule to matter. Enchin (2010) once again merely implies this by mentioning that while one study on AirCare claims that the program’s health benefits are $77 million, a different unpublished study claims a benefit of only $30 million, which is a value less than the cost of the program. I concede that the difference is substantial, and that if $30 million is accurate then an economist should indeed be evaluating whether or not the program is worth the expenses needed to run it. However, the fact that there are contradicting values does not necessarily mean that the lesser one is accurate; it means the program needs to be analyzed a third time. According to Enchin (2010), the number $30 million was calculated using MOBILE6 Vehicle Emission Modeling Software, but he does not include what the $77 million was calculated with and so it is impossible to decide that one value is more correct than the other. The author then proceeds to make quite an unjustifiable statement:

“An additional claim that the lifetime cancer risk would be reduced by 1.57 per cent through 2020 if AirCare were to continue is little more than a rounding error.” (Enchin 2010)

While the author seems to be implying that this reduction is negligible, it is completely unclear what sort of rounding error he could be referring to. He could, for instance, be implying that the value was mistakenly rounded to 1.57% instead of 1.56%, or any other value that could be accidentally stumbled upon while rounding. Either way, the author provides absolutely no evidence to support the claim, so it cannot be used to support his argument. Any reduction in cancer risk is a benefit and should not be idly dismissed by an unproven declaration. The author makes no attempt to counter possible objections and cannot rightly use AirCare’s impact on health to support the argument that the program is worthless.

Much of the author’s proof that AirCare lacks usefulness is too flawed to be used as evidence. The article’s description of the program’s impacts on the economy, on the environment, and on health cannot be used to support the author’s argument and do not hold up against obvious objections to the author’s claims. Another problem with the entire article is that these claims are too often merely implied, making it difficult to read and extract the author’s exact meaning from his writing. When menial things like lack of clarity skew an opinion, the purpose of an argument-based article is defeated.

REFERENCES

Enchin, By Harvey. "AirCare Serves No Purpose, Other than to Annoy Motorists." The Vancouver Sun. 6 Nov. 2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. .

Words: 1195