The following was written as part of a study weighing the benefits of a new construction project

in the city of Winterville. Car racing is extremely popular in the city of Winterville: over 20,000 Winterville residentsattended the state’s annual 500-lap race last summer, and the highest-rated television program in Winterville is “Race Talk,” which is broadcast every night. Also, many successful race-cardrivers live in Winterville. However, the nearest racetrack is over 150 miles away from Winterville. Given the popularity of car racing in Winterville, and a recent report indicating that the average race fan spends close to $500 per year attending car races, a new racetrack in Winterville would be very profitable.




The argument in the study regarding the possibilities of constructing a race track seem to rely on the reason that car racing is a popular sport in Winterville. The argument is flawed for numerous reasons, primarily because of the absence of reliable facts regarding the attendance of race car fans in proportion to the total population. The conclusion that building a new race-track in Winterville will be profitable, relies on uncertain justifications, causing the argument to be invalid.

The first flaw in the argument is the flaw of proportions itself. The attendance of 20,000 fans does not qualify much, since we are not given another reference to make a comparison with. If the total population was 30,000, then the argument’s point of popularity could have some weight. But what if the the total population was 2 million people? The fans would represent just 1% of the total population and the claim that the sport was popular would be invalid through this point. In order to remove this objection, the study should be clearer and represent numerical data with references. By having the population of the town or even a percentage in relation to the total population, a better understanding could be obtained.

The argument also states that the high rating of the television show “Race Talk” means that race car is popular among its citizens. This jump in rapidly evaluating the choices of citizens is perplexing. Several observations can be made regarding this clear jump. Firstly, high-rating does not represent the number of people watching. For example, Planet Earth is rated 9.0/10 on IMDB. This does not mean that Planet Earth is very popular among people, but it relates to the quality of the show or how entertaining it is. The folks in Winterville may enjoy the show, but that does not mean the whole town tunes in to watch it. Secondly, the cause of the high-ratings could be because of another factor. It could be possible people watch the show because of the TV-host or if famous celebrities like Robert Downey Jr. make an appearance on the show. To improve the argument then, it is important to define what high-rating means. Clarity can be further improved by considering the viewers tunes in the show per night, and creating a histogram showing the viewership over a period of 6 months.

Another flaw the argument makes is to assume that the average fan is equivalent to a Winterville fan. Averages rely on the whole population, and in this case, the whole population of the country. As such, there are bound to be some outliers that would change the average significantly. Because of this factor, it is not appropriate to use data of an average fan for a Winterville fan. Since we also talk about the spending of a fan, this can be related to the financial condition of the fan as well as the economy of the city the particular fan is from. If Winterville, is a poor town, it is unlikely that fans can pay $500 per year. The argument can be strengthened by including factual data of the economic condition of Winterville. Data for the spending of citizens of Winterville can then be plotted against the country-wise trends to see where the town lies. This comparison can give a quick idea. A better justification can be made with a town with a similar spending pattern.

In conclusion, due to the clear flaws in the argument relating to the proportions, definitions and equating averages to the whole community, the argument’s conclusion is deemed invalid. As such, without essential facts to back-up the argument, the conclusion is unconvincing and building a race-track for these reasons is completely inappropriate