Quote:
The following is a letter to the editor of the Roseville Gazette.
“Despite opposition from some residents of West Roseville, the arguments in favor of merging the townships of Roseville and West Roseville are overwhelming. First, residents in both townships are confused about which authority to contact when they need a service; for example, the police department in Roseville receives many calls from residents of West Roseville. This sort of confusion would be eliminated with the merger. Second, the savings in administrative costs would be enormous, since services would no longer be duplicated: we would have only one fire chief, one tax department, one mayor, and so on. And no jobs in city government would be lost – employees could simply be reassigned. Most importantly, the merger will undoubtedly attract business investments as it did when the townships of Hamden and North Hamden merged ten years ago.”
Argument opines that the merger of the townships of Roseville and West Roseville has numerous advantages. However, because several reasons as stated in previous paragraphs, argument provides a meagre and dubious support for its claim.
First, argument states that the merger would eliminate the confusion of the residents while contacting the authorities. That doesn't sound a good reason to merge the townships. Just because people are confused about which authorities to contact when they need a service, it doesn't justify the merger. A better solution for such a problem would be to enlighten the people about their respective authorities. Such a task would be very less tedious than merging the townships.
Second, argument assumes that such a merger will cut the admininstrative costs because various departments of both towns can be merged. The author needs to provide statistical data before making such consideration. Making such claims without providing any evidence weakens the argument. Reassigning the employees is also a very tedious task which needs to be handled carefully.
Third, argument opines that the merger will undoubtedly attract business investments by providing the example of the merger of Hamden and North Hamden. Just because such a merger was proven to beneficial in an earlier scenario, it cannot be assumed that it will be successful in this case as well. It may be possible that the dynamics of business are very differnt in Hamden and Roseville. The author needs to take into account more such instances before making such conclusion. Thus, author needs to consider various aspects of the merger before making such claims.
In conclusion, argument is neither sound nor persuasive and is substantially flawed. Author fails to convey any compelling reason and needs to research more about the benefits and issues such a merger would bring from a broader perspective.
Thanks for the feedback.
17 Mar 2022, 07:17 
