Critical Response to Martin and Milway’s Editorial Essay

In A Productive Labour The precisely Limit to Productivity Growth is Human Ingenuity, authors Martin and Mil counselling pitch an subscriber line for increase productiveness as a means of raising Canadas sparing health and victuals standards. Although Martin and Milways editorial on productiveness present a piece that is rational and easily understood, its effort to convince that readers of its principal(prenominal) phone line is encumbered by weaknesses in the authors approach and ratiocination that collar to more questions being increase than answered in the course of ones reading.The editorial underlines the importance of improving Canadas productivity in feeble of rising prices of manufactured goods and services that accompanied the streng then(prenominal)ing of the Canadian long horse in 2001. The chief(prenominal) argument put forth is that enhancing productivity is comminuted in ensuring improvements on the countrys living standards.The authors proceed to go for their arguments by presenting two ways by which living standards can be raised, the first by increasing the number of work hours or employ up more natural and physical resources for sustained wealth installation, and the split second by improving productivity or raising the value created per working hour. After illustrating that the first way is non a viable alternative, the authors then concentrate on convincing the reader why the second way is better by specify the concept of productivity based on cogency and innovation.The strength of Martin and Milways editorial lies in its ability to stir to the rational side of its readers and their ability to tackle an early(a)wise complicated up to(p) in simple term. The authors attempt to defend their arguments by stating facts and cargonfully defining their subject, that is, productivity. As a result, the readers are compelled to view their argument in friendliness of the definition that they present. Unfortunately, several we aknesses in Martin and Milways editorial in terms of their approach and in their reasoning reduce the effectivity of their argument.The biggest errors that exist in the editorial are faulty reasoning and the inability 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 living standards. (par. 4) The editorial was clearly written to convince readers that Canada needs to raise its productivity if it is to continue its scotch out evolution and if it is to raise living standards.On the other hand, the authors fail to present prove 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 assumed that the readers of the editorial would readily accept that an increase in economic growth follows from an increase in productivity. Likewise, this argument raises several implicati ons first, that economic growth is not possible without an increased productivity second, that productivity growth ceaselessly leads to a raise in the living standards.It is here that the informed consultation becomes wary as the authors bias shows through in their failure to demand 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 begging the question wherein the reader must already accept the cultivation in order to accept the evidence forwarded (Boyne, et. al. , 69).For instance, the authors enumerate the ways by which productivity can be improved to support their main contention. They responsibility that productivity increases in one of two ways greater efficiency in how we employ labour and capital, or greater value creation per un it of these inputs. (par. 8) This flow of the discussion reflects an assumption on the part 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 feel like the authors are trying to sound licit but cannot support their argument beyond the definition of the subject. Another provable error in reasoning in the Martin and Milways editorial is bigotry (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 productivity pay higher proceeds (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 lower wages are not productive or low in productivity. In sum, a unfavourable 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.