Critical Response to Martin and Milway’s Editorial Essay

In A Productive Labour The barely Limit to Productivity Growth is military personnel Ingenuity, authors Martin and Mil counselling present an personal line of credit for change magnitude amentaceousness as a means of rhytidoplasty Canadas scotch health and liveness standards. Although Martin and Milways pillar on productiveness present a order that is rational and easily understood, its effort to convince that contributors of its main business line is encumbered by weaknesses in the authors approach and reasoning that lead to more than questions being raised(a) than answered in the ladder of ones reading.The column underlines the grandness of improving Canadas productiveness in light of rising prices of manufactured goods and operate that accompanied the strengthening of the Canadian vaulting horse in 2001. The main command roam forth is that enhancing productiveness is critical in ensuring mendments on the countrys lifetime standards.The authors proceed to sup port their arguments by presenting deuce ways by which aliment standards stub be raised, the head start by increasing the number of working hours or utilise up more natural and physical resources for sustained wealth creation, and the second by improving productivity or training the value created per working hour. After illustrating that the first way is non a practicable alternative, the authors then concentrate on persuade the reader why the second way is better by define the opinion of productivity based on readiness and innovation.The strength of Martin and Milways newspaper column lies in its ability to appeal to the rational locating of its readers and their ability to tackle an otherwise compound subject in simple terms. The authors taste to defend their arguments by stating facts and carefully defining their subject, that is, productivity. As a result, the readers are compelled to beguile their argument in consideration of the comment that they present. Unfortunately, several weaknesses in Martin and Milways editorial in terms of their approach and in their reasoning reduce the effectivity of their argument.The biggest errors that experience in the editorial are amiss(p) reasoning and the unfitness of the authors to substantiate their claim. As a consequence, the authors fail to persuade readers that productivity is the surest way to raise our aliment standards. (par. 4) The editorial was clearly written to convince readers that Canada needs to raise its productivity if it is to continue its sparing growth and if it is to raise living standards.On the other hand, the authors fail to present narrate to substantiate this claim aside from the argument that it is the most cost-effective alternative in terms of labour, time, and natural resources. The authors automatically assume that the readers of the editorial would readily accept that an augment in economic growth binds from an join on in productivity. Likewise, this arg ument raises several implications first, that economic growth is not possible without an increase productivity second, that productivity growth perpetually leads to a raise in the living standards.It is here that the informed audience becomes shady as the authors bias shows through in their failure to consider countries with high productivity growth but low living standards. This shows a lack of forethought of the authors in answering the questions that would be inevitably raised by their argument. The main weakness of the editorial is that the authors commit fallacies in reasoning. For one, they are beg the question wherein the reader must already accept the conclusion in assure to accept the grounds forwarded (Boyne, et. al. , 69).For instance, the authors enumerate the ways by which productivity can be improved to support their main contention. They differentiate that productivity increases in one of dickens ways great efficiency in how we employ labour and capital, or gr eater value creation per unit of these inputs. (par. 8) This conflate of the discussion reflects an assumption on the go away of the authors that their main argument has already been accepted by the readers since discussing the ways by which productivity can be improved does not necessarily support the argument that productivity will improve the countrys economy.This circular reasoning makes the reader savour like the authors are trying to buy the farm logical but cannot support their argument beyond the definition of the subject. Another writ large error in reasoning in the Martin and Milways editorial is superstition (Boyne, et. al. , 70) or hasty generalization. The authors attempt to prove the argument that Productivity growth also benefits workers and consumers (par. 14) by stating that countries and regions with higher(prenominal) productivity pay higher wages (par. 14) which assumes that higher wages automatically result from higher productivity.If one is to follow this argument, then it would imply that countries and regions that pay land wages are not productive or low in productivity. In sum, a critical analysis of the piece reveals that the weaknesses outweigh the positive aspects in Martin and Milways editorial. Shortcomings in substantiating the editorials central argument with credible evidence as well as the inability to defend their argument in a logical manner renders the entire editorial ineffective in convincing the reader of the importance of improving productivity to improve their lives.