Missing the Obvious?

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

Repeat year creates risk

(The West, 11 Oct 2011)

Journalists, eh. They don't train 'em like they used to. Probably never did, either.

Here's a press release. Summarise it, print it. No time to question it...

Students who repeat a school year are more likely to skip school, lose motivation and have low self-esteem, new research has found.

Did the research check the students' attendance, motivation and self-esteem in their first attempt at the repeated year? Did the repeat year cause the students' lower attendance, lower motivation and lower self-esteem? Or did the students fail to learn the first time because they did not attend, had poor motivation or low self-esteem?

The research -- as reported -- raises obvious questions of cause and effect. Was this covered in the research?

A "journalist" has written a brief report which raises more questions than it answers. Is this because the research was weak? Or is it just the weak reporting.

If the research was weak then a journalist with half a brain should have noted this. If the research covered the before and after aspects of cause and effect -- then the reporting still failed to provide a fair report.

Journalists, eh. If they had half a brain, they'd be dangerous.

A city ravaged by tower blocks

(The West, 11 Oct 2011)

Academics, eh. They don't train 'em like they used to. Probably never did, either.

Dr Linley Lutton has written an opinion piece, lamenting the ugly tower blocks replacing historic buildings in the City of Perth. Here's the last paragraph of his article:

Sadly, there are few gatekeepers to protect the City of Perth. The residential population in the city centre is so small and only a handful of these are owner-occupiers with any sense of belonging so there is no one to take up arms and protect the city. The barbarians have entered and now control the city and show none of the understanding or sophistication required to create a city for people.

At least you can tell that Lutton is really an academic. Just look at the length of those few sentences!

But...

Just look at the points made in that concluding paragraph:

1. The residential population of the city is small
2. There are very few owner-occupiers
3. Not many of the small city population want to protect the city
4. Barbarians now control the city
5. The barbarians will not create a city for people.

The gap in Lutton's logic is between points four and five. Just before the final point. The gap in the logic?

Lutton's final point assumes that the City of Perth should be for people!

Yet -- from the first few points -- very few people actually live in the city. Even fewer care about the city. So which "people" want a "city for people"?

Or do I mean, For which people should the city be designed?! Either way...

Lutton's logic has stated that the City of Perth is not for people. No people live there, no people care to fight for a people-friendly city.

Lutton has presented an argument -- then shot it down. Which is a pity, really, because I agree with the general direction of the argument. But the obvious fallacy spoils the point.

Academics, eh. If they had half a brain, they'd be dangerous.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems. Agamedes Consulting: Support for your thought. email nick leth at gmail dot com