Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

Liang 1

Aaron Liang
Professor Harrison
November 21, 2014
Analyzing Inductive Arguments
Public opinion surveys are used for generating understandable information from a set
amount people. Conducting these surveys involves peoples' opinion and this could be seen as
inductive generalizations because their answers vary from their experience and what they
encounter. Inductive arguments are used a lot in society because it results in being valid or
invalid, because of this surveys should meet a set of standards such as, a method of gathering
people to participate, clear and specific objectives, and varying degrees of accuracy showcasing
the high and low percentages of a party. In this analytical writing I will highlight the strong and
weak surveys in which it corresponds to the relation of inductive argument. The validity of the
strong and weak surveys would be the determination of whether their methods and objectives are
efficiently utilized. The order in which I will discuss and analyze the strong survey first, and
following with the weak survey.
The strong survey's property in question is about the pension reforms that is negatively
affecting Providence financially and budget problems. The survey as a sample size of 425
Providence citizens of Rhode Island., even though the textbook says to have 1000 participants to
avoid hastiness it would not be a big problem because any amount is valid to justify an
estimation of data. The survey's main issue is about pension reforms and to seek a resolution they
conducted this study with questions that regards to this. For example, The Taubman survey

Liang 2
asked voters to respond to several questions regarding pension reform. A significant majority
(64.0 percent) said they are aware of the unfunded pension liability issue facing Providence and
other cities, while 64.7 percent of Providence voters believe that all affected parties retirees,
current workers, and future workers should bear an equal share of the burden of pension
reform(Providence Poll: Voters Worry Over City Finances, Pension Reform). With this being
said, their method is basically the self-completion questionnaires where the participants answer a
series of question regarding the issue of the topic(pension reforms). Also, Researchers at the A.
Alfred Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions and the John Hazen White
Public Opinion Laboratory at Brown University surveyed a random sample of 425 of
Providences registered voters( Providence Poll: Voters Worry Over City Finances, Pension
Reform). This showcases the method mentioned before because it was a random selection of
registered voters and this results in quick data collection and opinions on the topic of pension
In this particular survey I do not think there were any moments for it to be bias because
these are registered voters and are valued participants with their opinions. There was no mention
of an age group but judging by the subjects of this survey it surely indicates an adult group. Such
subjects that was mentioned in this survey are affected parties such as: retirees, current workers,
and future workers. This survey is specifically backed from the Brown University and the 425
voters are all random and thus, serves that this survey's representativeness is fair. Furthermore,
this survey's error margin is plus or minus 4.7 percent making it a good overall percentage of
confidence level. This survey would be considered strong because the chance of failure is low
and I think that it deserves a strong 9. I could no give this survey a 10 because of the problem

Liang 3
that people already knew and such percentage of the participants knowing was rather high.
Despite this, the votes for change is not out of question and the affects of this survey would
surely assist the city. The survey was strong in focusing on its objectives and had serious
percentage rates of both the supporters and non-supporters.
For the weak survey I have selected, the property in question is, A new public opinion
survey by Brown University researchers finds that Rhode Island voters appear poised to approve
questions one and two on the state ballot, which would allow casino gaming in Lincoln and
Newport. Despite an approval rating of just 29.7 percent(Statewide Poll: Rhode Island Voters
Likely to Approve Casino Gambling). The sample size for this survey is 496 Rhode Island voters
and this would result in some hastiness because of it not meeting a 1000 minimum to avoid it.
The method for this survey was a random selection of registered people who are permitted to
vote. Such method as this is refer to as simple random sample (SRS) because despite gender
anyone has a chance to be chosen. The variance of this type of method is that it will produce less
bias and simplifies analysis of the subject. This SRS method could have an imbalance of votes
because no one is handpicked and the views on the subject of casino gaming could have an
unfair percentage because of that.
This weak survey could have some bias value in it because the topic is about casino
gaming being a new means of business. I would think that the majority of the voters would enjoy
this kind of ballot because casinos and gambling is in everyone's nature and being that Ls Vegas
is extremely far from Rhode Island it would just make sense. As discussed above this survey
only had an approval percentage of 29.7 percent. The target population would be Rhode Island
residents and comprise mostly of adults in this topic of casino gaming. I would rate this survey

Liang 4
from 1 to 10, it being a 4 because of the topic is very unnecessary and would cause economic
problems to the people. For example, Rhode Island voters continue to think the states economy
is in rough shape, with most judging the local economy not so good or poor (93.4 percent). These
results are similar to those from a February 2012 survey in which 95.5 percent of voters felt the
economy was not so good or poor (Statewide Poll: Rhode Island Voters Likely to Approve
Casino Gambling). This overall survey is a mess because of such current problems and by even
considering this as an approval is just invalid. The poll error margin is plus or minus 4.4 percent
which make it seem that it could be as a non failure. The random selection of registered voters in
the matter of casino gaming would be that bias is be avoided because of how their personal
intent and opinions can affect a decision such as this. In a more serious ballot of topics such as
this, the results can greatly change determining what other problems can coincide and affect its
approval positively or negatively.,. 'Statewide Poll: Rhode Island Voters Likely To Approve Casino Gambling
Taubman Center For Public Policy & American Institutions'. N. p., 2014. Web. 21 Nov.
2014.,. 'Providence Poll: Voters Worry Over City Finances, Pension Reform Taubman
Center For Public Policy & American Institutions'. N. p., 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.