This is an example of the entire project with analysis and evaluations at the end. The problem with this paper is the length, but the scholarship is so exacting that no points were lost. The form and the parts, analysis, evaluation, etc. are all correct. There are a few errors in the in-text citations style. e.g. where numbers and stats should have been cited, but otherwise this is an excellent example of an evaluative argument. The entire project is nineteen pages long.
jv

YESTREBI Rachel

Judith Van

ENG 105-82590

13 October 2008

WP 2: Evaluative Argument

China's Family Planning Policy

The problem of human overpopulation is fast becoming an increasingly prominent global concern. Several developing nations with large or growing populations have taken measures to avert the worst of this crisis by implementing nationwide birth control policies that limit the number of children that each couple may have, thereby curtailing excessive population growth. The first such policy, introduced in China in 1979, has proven to be the most controversial. The Chinese family planning policy—known popularly as the “one-child” policy—has raised questions over the morality of a legislated birth control policy since its inception. Countless human-rights advocates have decried it for being a violation of the liberties that they hold so dear, and the Chinese government representatives who have written in the defence of the necessity, humaneness, and efficacy of their policy have been equally legion. Within the past decade, though, the focus of the controversy has shifted from a morality vs. necessity debate to one over what actions China should take, if any, to mitigate the numerous adverse social and economic consequences that the one-child policy has provoked.

I will conduct an evaluation of the relative merits of two arguments representing opposing viewpoints on the issue of whether or not China should alter its family planning policy in order to address these emerging detrimental trends. I will evaluate each argument against the following set of criteria: Clarity of organization, credibility (encompassing citation use to verify data sources and inclusion of backing for warrants), author language tone, the presence and quality of evidence given to support each assertion, relevance of said assertions to the greater claim of the argument, and the inclusion of an explicit presentation of an opposing viewpoint. Finally, I will briefly present my own argument wherein I defend my claim of superiority of one argument over the other. I have chosen the aforementioned criteria upon which to base my evaluation and therefore my argument because an argument that adheres to them will be easy to understand, thorough, logically cohesive, and inoffensive to the reader’s sense of ethos. Through both personal observation and discussion with others, I have come to the conclusion that the presence or absence of these core qualities is a primary determinant of the persuasive power of a given argument.

For the purposes of this evaluation, I have chosen opposing arguments set forth by Li Wei-Xiong of the Chinese central government’s National Research Institute for Family Planning, and Wang Feng, an associate professor of sociology at the University California, Irvine as well as a fellow in the East-West Center’s Program for Population. Whereas Li maintains that China’s family planning policy is effective and not in need of revision, Wang asserts that drastic alteration to the policy is in fact necessary to China’s future well-being.

The common sentiment within the ranks of the Chinese central government is that the current family planning policy is an effective, socially responsible means of curbing rampant population growth. The induction of the Population and Family Planning Law in 2002 (Wang 9) officially cemented China’s intention to maintain the present one-child family planning policy for the foreseeable future. Li Wei-Xiong is, as previously noted, a vocal proponent of this stance. He maintains that the current family planning policy is viable because it is in accordance with China’s cultural values, can be widely implemented due to strong government support for “safe, efficient, and low-cost” contraceptive methods (Li 3), and has proven effective thus far in reaching its goal. Given his background as a researcher, it is unsurprising that he relies heavily upon impressive-looking statistics and charts to support his argument. He does so effectively, but not superbly, as deeper analysis will reveal.

Li’s paper does an adequate job of convincing the reader of the validity of his position. His writing style is logically organized, with each point introduced through a boldface header and supporting information immediately below. Li makes no statements that he does not immediately verify through the presentation of supporting statistics. For example, he follows up his point that the family planning policy has been successful with recent census data that demonstrates that roughly 300 million projected births have been avoided over the first 24 years during which the family planning policy has been in effect. (2) He then calls attention to the fact that in some urban areas, the population is actually decreasing. This can be observed in large metropolitan centres such as Shanghai, where the natural growth rate (excluding immigration and emigration) was -1,20. (2) The consistent presence of such grounds and the logical sequence in which they are included in the essay serve to strengthen the overall argument. Li leaves little to doubt, and not once did I question how evidence supported a reason nor how said reasons related to the principle claim. By ensuring that each of his points is pertinent to his claim, Li succeeds in capturing and maintaining the attention of the reader throughout the article. In a similar vein, the grounds upon which these points are based are very thorough; the statistics and graphs that pervade the article are relevant and serve to justify Li’s assertions. Li’s fastidious research is evident when, to corroborate his statement that there is government support for a wide range of effective contraceptives, he goes as far as to include tables of all birth control services the government offers freely (4) and accompanying efficacy and complication rates (5). This wealth of information is presented in the matter-of-fact tone of the scientist, which allows the facts to outshine the rhetoric. This approach is both ethically appealing and fitting given the argument’s emphasis on empirical fact over emotion.

It is refreshing to see that Li both states his warrant explicitly: the opening paragraph itself explains that there is a real necessity to curb population growth in China because this country does not have the natural resources to sustain a population that continues to grow at the current geometric rate. (Li 1) True to form, Li backs this warrant through empirical means, citing research that indicates that, whilst the maximum sustainable population figure for China hovers around 1,6 billion, the ideal population for the most economic growth and development falls between 700 million and 1 billion people. With China’s population currently around 1,3 billion and growing, population control would be needed to achieve these ideals. (1) The net result of the inclusion of this thorough backing is that there is very little room for doubt as to the warrant upon which Li based his argument, nor its validity if one is to believe the research.

It is here that Li’s argument falters, as the complete lack of in-text citations and attribution means that a reader can never know where, precisely, Li obtained any of his statistics. Whilst Li includes a list of sources at the end of his paper, he does not give us the information necessary to determine which figures came from which source. Thus, we are unable to verify the credibility of the statistics, and this under undermines Li’s own credibility. Since his report was not issued in any journal, we are equally unable to determine if his facts have been reviewed by unbiased third parties prior to publication. As part of the National Research Institute for Family Planning, it is very possible that Li is a primary source for some of the statistics, but if this should be the case, he should state as much in his article. As it is, the paper makes no effort to attribute stated figures to any source, and we are left to choose between skepticism and embracing the proffered data unquestioningly. Since Li’s argument relies so heavily on these numbers to form the framework for the grounds and backing, this glaring omission has a hugely detrimental effect on its overall strength.

The other area in which I take issue with this argument also concerns an omission: no opposing viewpoints are presented in Li’s article. Whilst Li’s own presentation is excellently organized and written in exacting detail, no provision is made to address the likely concerns of the readers who approach this article with heavy skepticism at best, and open hostility at worst. A truly excellent argument should outline common opposing views and provide a response that explains why the arguer took the position that he did in light of these counterarguments. The inclusion of these conditions of rebuttal should ideally open the minds of the most hostile readers to the complexity of the issue, and encourage at the very least a thorough reflection on the subject matter. In choosing not to include opposing viewpoints, Li denies himself this opportunity.

In summary, Li’s argument is effective on the merits of its logical structure and thoroughly supported statements, but a lack of citations and the absence of a response to critics prevent it from being truly great. Taken by itself, the argument stands, but can it prevail against a well-written argument espousing an opposing viewpoint?

China’s one-child policy has been in effect for nearly three decades. Enough time has passed that several alarming trends have begun to emerge. A growing number of analysts and researchers are coming to the conclusion that China must drastically modify its family planning policy lest it face the severe repercussions of increasingly dire social and economic consequences occasioned by the current policy. This is Wang Feng’s claim. Wang maintains that China faces a rapidly aging population (4), an increasingly pronounced disparity in the male to female birth ratio (5), and an escalating financial and political burden inherent in the maintenance of the one-child policy (6). She claims further that changes to the fertility policy should be made as soon as possible, reasoning that there already exists an alternative to the one-child policy that will mitigate many of its consequences whilst still controlling population growth (8). Wang, like Li, has chosen to make heavy use of statistics and graphs to fortify her grounds, but her direct citation-heavy approach lends her argument an aura of credibility that Li’s simply lacks.

Wang’s excellent argument begins with a strong foundation. Her argument is arranged into a logical sequence of points directly followed by their supporting particulars. Much like Li, Wang employs boldfaced headings that succinctly express points before elaborating upon and supporting said points in the main body of the text. The proffered reasons, summarized above, are well-formulated and systematically relate to, and support, the primary viewpoint espoused by the argument. Supporting grounds primarily consist of a series of judiciously-chosen statistics and Wang’s interpretations of these numbers. When Wang asserts, for example, that the government devotes an untenable portion of its resources to the maintenance of the one-child policy, she clarifies that government spending allocation to family planning programs has increased more than threefold in one decade, from 1,34 billion yuan in 1990 to 4,82 billion yuan by 1998 (8). To put this figure into context, she adds that this rate of budget increase exceeds those of publicly sponsored construction and national defense (8). As this example illustrates, Wang’s policy of including brief explanations of the figures included in her article aids the lay reader in establishing meaningful connections between each reason and the oft-daunting series of numbers given as grounds. By taking pains to ensure relevance, both internally between reasons and the primary claim as well as with the reader, she creates a compelling argument that maintains reader interest throughout its considerable eleven-page length.

Wang bases her argument upon the warrant that the observed social and economic consequences of the one-child policy, namely “rapid population aging…, a lopsided sex ratio…, and the collapse of the government birth reporting system” (Wang 4) are sufficiently dire that addressing them should be given priority over the need to dramatically curtail population growth. This warrant is not explicitly stated in her article; however, sufficient backing is given throughout the article that those who would object to it will find ample justification in the course of their reading. Wang reveals that the most drastic decline in fertility rates was achieved in the years from 1970 to 1979, before the implementation of the one-child policy, under the government’s looser family planning policy that encouraged later marriages, fewer births, and more time in between multiple births. (3) Thus, the alteration, actually reversion, of the one-child policy to a “two-child” policy would still address population concerns. If population control can be established through less drastic measures, Wang concludes, there is little reason not to take steps to mitigate other threats to the well-being of the citizenry. Since detailed backing such as this is provided, I find that the argument is not weakened by the assumed warrant.

Wang further enhances her credibility through the meticulous use of in-text footnotes that accompany each set of statistics presented. An extensive list of works cited is appended to the end of the article. Although the footnotes are not strictly in-text citations, they afford the reader the knowledge of precisely what data comes from what source. This has the same positive effect on credibility as full in-text citations, and serves to strengthen the argument’s integrity through appeals to ethos. Through the inclusion of specific citations, Wang’s forthrightness with citations appeals to the rhetorical reader who is unwilling to take anything at face value without first verifying the credibility of the source whence it came.

In a final coup, Wang has included within her own argument a brief overview of the primary counterargument; namely, the Chinese government’s stance. She concedes that the modification of the extant birth control policy carries with it the risk inherent in change and acknowledges that China already has a precedent for unpredictable, unfavourable complications as the result of a major policy change. She asserts that successfully effecting change will “require political courage and wisdom” (10) and even calls the government’s current intransigence “understandable” (10). That said, Wang offers a response to this position that supports her view and further proves its validity, finally concluding that “history… will not be kind to those who procrastinate” (11). The conditions of rebuttal in this argument are treated with the utmost delicacy and without the slightest trace of vitirol or inflammatory language. This fairness of tone pervades the entire article and contributes to its persuasive power.

Overall, Wang puts forth an excellent, well-organized argument that appeals to the reader on multiple levels and does not contradict itself. She allows the data to speak largely for themselves, and for me, these data are the argument’s primary strength, as they are presented both in-context and with thorough citation.

When directly compared, I find Wang’s argument for changing the one-child policy to be by far the stronger. She does a better job of appealing to a larger audience than Li does, for within her writing is an implicit acknowledgement that other, legitimate stances on this issue do exist. In so keeping an open mind, Wang succeeds in similarly opening her readers’ minds to the viewpoint that she espouses. She further encourages this open-mindedness by maintaining credibility throughout her article far more effectively than Li has. Whilst Li’s more explicit style will appeal to many, his omission of in-text attribution cannot be overlooked when determining his credibility. He further harms his case by choosing not to include an opposing position and response. When one observes the efficacy of this tactic in Wang’s article, it is difficult not to wonder why Li had not chosen to make similar provisions for those who would initially disagree with him.

Ironically, it is the similarity of the methods through Li and Wang choose to present their arguments that make the differences so glaring. Both display strong organizational skill, with arguments that not only are coherent and logically arranged but also employ similar formatting conventions. Both authors have chosen to incorporate both visual and textual data to support their claims, and both rely heavily on statistics to prove their points. Wang here has a slight advantage, though, because she contextualizes the data more skillfully: as I’ve previously stated, her explanations and interpretations of the statistics help the reader to more fully embrace their significance. I say “slight” because the figures cited by both Wang and Li are largely luculent. The authors are more closely matched in their ability to select data that are pertinent and clearly support their reasons. Similarly, both have offered reasons that represent logical extensions of their respective claims. In effect, both Wang and Li appeal strongly to logos.

It is in their ethos appeals that discrepancies between these two authors begin to emerge. Whilst both Wang and Li conclude their papers with a list of sources, Wang alone cites these sources in the body of her text through the use of a footnote system. As I have demonstrated in my evaluations, her meticulousness is well-compensated through the significant, positive effect that it has on her credibility. Establishing unequivocal credibility is as vital to the success of an argument as its content. If we cannot trust an author’s ethics or competence, why should we lend credence to this same person’s claims? Even if those claims make sense, how do we know that the supporting evidence has not been distorted when we cannot independently verify its provenance? These are the sorts of questions evoked by Li’s omission of direct citations. With his credibility so severely compromised, his argument cannot hold its own against an equally well-written and cited counterargument such as the one that Wang has presented.

All other things being equal, this difference alone accounts for the superior persuasive capability of Wang’s argument. Nonetheless, Wang succeeds in another area where Li comes up short: she includes conditions of rebuttal in her argument. In doing so, Wang manages to make an appeal to those readers who may initially disagree with her. She appeases them by acknowledging the validity of their positions, and may open the minds of some through her example of respect and empathy for the opposing viewpoint. Yet, she is able to provide a response to this viewpoint that clearly supports her own claims. This will, if nothing else, highlight the complexity of the issue and encourage studious contemplation on the part of those wishing to adopt an opinion. By not including conditions of rebuttal in his argument, Li effectively extirpates this opportunity for meaningful dialogue. After having read his argument, one can choose either to agree with his position on the strength of his supporting evidence, or not. His article does not sufficiently address the concerns of readers who may not initially agree with his opinion.

In Li’s defense, his argument’s reasoning is more explicit and concise. His pragmatic approach addresses China’s immediate concerns, whereas Wang’s argument focuses on a possible future scenario that cannot be proven nor assured. For this reason, some may find Li’s argument to be more relevant than Wang’s speculations. It is true that Wang relies heavily on projection and estimations to support her claims, but she has also taken pains to cite current trends and precedents for her prognostications. By examining the factors that contributed to China’s current socioeconomic troubles as well as the development of such disconcerting trends, she establishes a framework for her predictions that is firmly grounded in fact. Armed with this context, we can more easily accept her speculation.

In the final analysis, Wang’s argument proves to be the more effective of the two due to her superior management of the credibility issue. When two opposing conjectures are represented by authors who both present compelling cases in defense of their own views, as is the case here, it is often the intangible that determines which of the two arguments ultimately prevails. Here, the battle was won not on superior facts or a better case, but on the less concrete yet no less important idea of author credibility. If any insight is to be gained from this paper, it is that attention to every factor that could possibly influence upon a reader’s perception, no matter how trivial it may at first seem, is an essential component of a superlatively persuasive argument.

Works Cited

Li, Wei-Xiong. “Family Planning in China.” Swiss Academy of Medicine and Ethics. Medizin-Ethik.ch. 1 October 2008.

<http://www.medizin-ethik.ch/publik/family_planning.htm>

Wang, Feng. “Can China Afford to Continue Its One-Child Policy?.” AsiaPacific Issues 1:77 (Mar. 2005): 1-12. EastWestCenter.org. East-West Center. 8 October 2008. <http://www.eastwestcenter.org/>

Article Analyses

Article 1

http://www.medizin-ethik.ch/publik/family_planning.htm

I have chosen the article “Family Planning in China” by Li Wei-Xiong to represent the argument in favour of China’s one-child policy. The following is an analytical breakdown of Li’s argument according to the Toulmin schema.

Claim: China’s national family planning policy is an effective, socially responsible means of curbing population growth in that nation.

Qualifier: None

Reason: Family planning is in accordance with China’s cultural values.

Grounds: The values promoted by Chinese culture are those espoused in Confucian philosophy; namely, that the well-being of a nation comes before the well-being of an individual, and a government’s role is to provide citizens with the means to achieve this national prosperity. According to Confucian teachings, when individual desire conflicts with what is best for the people at large, the decision that benefits the people is the one that should be taken. As this pertains to population control, the government is fulfilling its social responsibility by introducing a national family planning policy, and each citizen is morally obligated to better serve the interests of his or her country by electing to adhere to this policy. (Li 3)

Reason: Family planning can be widely implemented due to strong government support for “safe, efficient, and low-cost” contraceptive methods. (3)

Grounds: China is able to provide a majority of the various forms of contraceptives offered around the world, including but not limited to intrauterine devices; hormonal birth control in the form of pills, patches, and shots; tubal ligation surgery; condoms; and spermicides. (4) The vast majority (98%) of these products and services are provided freely by the government. (3) Ongoing support is also provided to couple who choose to use contraception to ensure that the method(s) chosen are working properly. For example, women with IUDs can have an examination by ultrasound every three months to ensure that the device has not migrated from the uterus and is thus still effective. (4) Abortion is also legal in China and offered to those whose contraceptive methods have failed and wish to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The establishments that may offer this service are government-funded and regulated to ensure the utmost safety. Li includes charts of data that demonstrate the efficacy and safety of contraceptive measures. (6)

Reason: Family planning has been proven effective thus far in reaching its goal.

Grounds: Chinese statisticians have determined that roughly 300 million projected births have been avoided over the first 24 years during which the family planning policy has been in effect. (2) In some urban areas, the population is actually decreasing, as in Shanghai, where the natural growth rate (excluding immigration and emigration) was -1,20. (2)

Warrant: Population growth must be curbed in China.

Backing: China does not have the natural resources to sustain a population that continues to grow at the current geometric rate. To demonstrate China’s dire lack of arable land, Li reveals that China has roughly the same area as the United States, and yet only one-eighth the amount of cultivated land as the latter. (1) He goes on to describe China’s fresh water concerns, noting that water is scarce in that country when considered per capita. Finally, Li cites research that indicates that, whilst the maximum sustainable population figure for China hovers around 1,6 billion, the ideal population for the most economic growth and development falls between 700 million and 1 billion people. (1) With China’s population currently around 1,3 billion and growing, population control would be needed to achieve these ideals.

Warrant: It is the responsibility of the government to regulate population growth and thus, family planning.

Backing: Li refers to traditional Confucian thinking that states that it is a ruler’s duty to further aims that promote the greater good of the society. He has demonstrated how Chinese society will be much better off if the population is stabilised. It follows that it is the government’s duty to achieve this.

Conditions of Rebuttal: None stated in the argument; a common objection could be that the methods through which the government carries out its civil duty are not always justifiable.

Appeals to Logos: This article appeals very strongly to logos upon cursory inspection; it is liberally annotated with graphs and figures of all sorts that reinforce the author’s points. No claims are made that are not supported by evidence of some sort.

Appeals to Ethos: The author documents his sources at the end of the article. This helps to establish credibility. His position as a government researcher would afford him access to much information that he can make use of to formulate his argument. The information is well-organised and fairly comprehensive. There are a few mechanics errors (I saw one capitalisation error and a minor spelling error that was corrected in later instances of the word), but this work is either the product of a translation or written in a non-native language. I could thus rationalize these minute errors, and they did not harm the ethos appeal. On the other hand, Li does not document his sources in-text, and we are thus left wondering where the many specific figures were obtained. Often, the research is attributed to “experts” in a matter. This harms credibility and ethos appeal somewhat.

Appeals to Pathos: Li speaks of the one-child policy as a government fulfilling its duty to promote the welfare of its people, and thus avoid plunging them into mass famine and draught when resources will have been tapped. This is a very noble endeavour, and one that appeals to the humanitarian element of most people. The idea that rather than engendering human suffering, the family policy is in place to prevent it has a very strong pathos appeal.

Logical Fallacies: It is stated on the third page of the article that the family planning policy is in accordance with the value system inherent in the Chinese psyche. In the very same paragraph, Li concedes that citizens, particularly those in rural areas, wish to have more children than the government allows, and that the government must enforce the policy in the favour of societal prosperity. If the family planning policy is a natural extension of Chinese values, why would so many Chinese be willing to violate their own values in order to have more children?

Credibility Statement: Li Wei-Xiong is a member of the National Research Institute for Family Planning, which is a government division that examines the effects and results of the current family planning policy and determines ways to improve it, if such is deemed necessary. His status as a government worker is both an asset and a detriment to credibility. Certainly, someone in his position will have access to the latest findings and theoretical research—something that is abundantly clear in his statistic-laden article. As a researcher, he would either be a primary source or have access to primary sources for many of his statistics. That said, the Chinese government, which is known to censor material that is unfavourable to government policy, clearly has an agenda, and as a government worker, it can be assumed that Li does as well, at least insofar as his published material is concerned. With access to so many statistics, he could easily select those that throw a positive light onto the one-child policy and choose to omit the rest while remaining honest.

Removed from his background, Li’s writing style is analytical and follows a logical pattern that lends credibility to his claims. As stated before, it is to his detriment that he is not very meticulous about citing his sources in-text. This is surprising as well, as he surely would have had access to such information. However, many of the figures that he has given are corroborated by those on both sides of the one-child controversy, and I am thus more willing to accept other statistics cited in the paper. Overall, Li is an effective representative of the government’s position on the one-child policy.

Evaluation:

Li Wei-Xiong’s paper does an adequate job of convincing the reader of the validity of his position. His writing style is logically organised, with reasons clearly connected to grounds that support them. His evidence is very detailed and makes good use of statistics and graphs that are pertinent and serve to justify his assertions. There is little derivation from the topic at hand, and this concision helps to both keep the reader’s attention and highlight the most important information presented. Warrants are actually stated and then given backings, which is refreshing to see.

It must be noted though that many of the statistics that Li gives are not attributed to a specific source. Whilst Li cites his sources at the end of the paper, no in-text information is given about where he found the various numbers that figure so prominently in the essay. This lack of specific, in-text citations harms Li’s credibility and thus his argument. In addition, the opposing argument is not presented and responded to. Li’s argument itself is logical and easy to follow, but a response should be given to common dissenting views in order to truly persuade those readers who are at the outset opposed to the position that Li espouses.

In summary, Li’s argument is effective on the merit of its logical structure and thoroughly supported statements, but a lack of citations and the absence of a response to critics prevent it from being truly great.

Article 2

In keeping with advised revisions, I have selected a new article upon which to base my paper: “Can China Afford to Continue Its One-Child Policy?” by Wang Feng. This article examines why the Chinese family planning policy is in need of revision, contrary to Li’s extolling of the current policy’s virtues.

The article can be found through this link:

http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/api077.pdf

Claim: China’s current “one-child” family planning policy is in need of revision in order to avoid numerous adverse social and economic consequences.

Qualifier: There is none here.

Reason: China faces a rapidly aging population with fewer children to support them.

Grounds: China’s fertility rate has dropped dramatically in the past 40 years. This will result in a demographic skew towards an older population base. This has already been observed to some degree; in the 1980’s, 4,9 percent of China’s population consisted of those 65 years old and older, whereas today, this figure has grown to 10 percent. (Wang 4) By the middle of the century, the elderly are projected to make up 20 percent of the population if fertility rates remain as they are currently. (5) Older Chinese have traditionally relied on their children to support them in late life, but as the demographics become ever more skewed, only children will be ever more hard-pressed to support their many elder family members, if at all.

Reason: The gender balance amongst Chinese newborns is becoming progressively more skewed towards boys, which makes it more difficult for men to fine mates.

Grounds: In 1982, when the one-child policy was still relatively new, the birth ratio of boys to girls was roughly 108,2 to 100. By the year 2000, ratio had become 119,2 boys to every 100 girls. (6) This is due to both a stipulation of the family planning policy that states that rural couples may have a second child if their first is a daughter, and sex-selective abortions occur because a couple wishes to have a son rather than a daughter to fulfill their one-child quota. The lack of girls, who are traditionally less valued than boys in Chinese society, has lead to the reemergence of the concept of marriage as a social status symbol. With far fewer marriageable women than men, the men who are more highly educated and affluent have a far greater chance to find a bride. By the year 2000, a full 27 percent of the least-schooled men in rural areas were still unmarried by the age of 40, whilst only one percent of men with university degrees remained bachelors at this age. (6)

Reason: Maintenance of the current family planning policy requires an enormous amount of resources on the part of the government in both manpower and money.

Grounds: As the one-child family planning policy is not in accordance with the wishes of a majority of Chinese couples, the government outlay to enforce the policy has been tremendous. The central government has found that it needs “an army of birth control officials” (8) in order to achieve results. When the one-child policy was first introduced, there were about 60.000 officials who worked full-time on its implementation and maintenance. By the late 1990’s, this number hovered around 300.000, and that was after the government had cut a quarter of the positions due to growing economic concerns. (8) These figures only represent the full-time birth control officers under the direct control of the central government. Millions more are enlisted through less direct measures. China also experiences an economic strain from the government subsidy of birth control methods: many forms of birth control, including potentially expensive sterilisation operations, are provided free of charge to any citizen wishing to obtain them.

Reason: There exists an alternative to the one-child policy that will mitigate many of its consequences whilst still controlling population growth.

Grounds: China has secured a low fertility rate; ergo, a less drastic family planning policy can now be implemented without threatening the gains that the one-child policy has achieved in population stabilisation. A shift to a two-child policy would do much to relieve the social and economic strain on the government, because it would be consistent with the wishes of the majority of the population. Adopting a family planning policy that a large majority of citizens will voluntarily comply with will “drastically reduce the political and organisational costs of policy maintenance.” (9)

Warrant: The observed social and economic consequences of the one-child policy, namely “rapid population aging…, a lopsided sex ratio…, and the collapse of the government birth reporting system” (4) are sufficiently dire that addressing them should be given priority over the need to dramatically curtail population growth.

Backing: Firstly, the most drastic decline in fertility rates was observed in the years from 1970-1979, before the implementation of the one-child policy, under the government’s looser family planning policy that encouraged later marriages, fewer births, and more time in between multiple births. (3) Thus, the alteration, actually reversion, of the one-child policy to a “two-child” policy would still address population concerns. Also, fertility rate decline observed under the one-child policy could be attributed to various socioeconomic policy changes that China underwent in a concurrent time frame. Young Chinese during the 1990’s were far more career-oriented than their parents, and thus put off childbearing, and those who did wish to start a family found that the cost of raising children—who now needed the best education available in order to thrive in a very selective school system—made the upbringing of several children financially untenable. Taken together, this data indicates that the specific one-child policy is not instrumental in maintaining a lowered fertility rate. If population can be controlled with less drastic measures, there is little reason not to take steps to mitigate other threats to the well-being of the citizenry.

Conditions of Rebuttal: Open opposition to the one-child policy has all but disappeared since the government shifted its focus from coercing compliance to providing better service and education. Because of this, some government officials believe that the general populace has finally submitted to the policy and that it will be tenable for years to come. In addition, changing the policy represents a risk. The results of such a change cannot be predicted with complete accuracy. There is always a chance of an unforeseen consequence as a result of any action that breaks with the status quo.

Appeals to Logos: This article builds its case primarily on appeals to logos, as each principle reason is supported through a series of comparative statistics that convey very effectively the urgency of China’s situation. When Wang’s assertions cannot be verified through empirical means, she consistently provides logical explanations for his reasoning. For example, when she stated that fewer birth control officers would be needed if the policy was modified, she explained immediately afterwards that less resistance to the policy would result in a decreased need for officials to enforce it. Such logical connections appeal well to logos.

Appeals to Ethos: Wang is meticulous about citing her sources through footnotes in the body of the text that are then explained at the end of the article. This lends much credibility to an article that relies so heavily on statistics. In addition, the tone of Wang’s language is even and unbiased: whilst she has no compunctions about stating her opinion, this is never done with either inflammatory language or illogical declarations.

Appeals to Pathos: Near the end of the article, Wang includes a series of especially dire predictions should China not change its one-child policy. Her prognostication that “[50 percent] of elderly women will face a severe lack of familial support during their last years” by 2050 (10) is a particularly strong appeal to the emotions and a poignant indicator of the urgency with which China needs to modify its family planning policy. Whilst the article has no shortage of statistics that suggest the same thing, the introduction of a more human element finally brings to pathos the same conviction that has previously been delivered to logos.

Logical Fallacies: It is to Wang’s credit that I do not see any logical fallacies in this text.

Credibility Statement: An enquiry into Wang Feng’s background revealed that she is an associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Irvine as well as a fellow in the East-West Center’s Program for Population. These strong credentials suggest that she is experienced in the subject matter about which she writes. The East-West Center, who have published the paper featured in this analysis, are an American organisation founded in 1960 by Congress with the aim of fostering positive relationships between the people of the United Stated and those of Asia and the Pacific Islands. This government-funded organisation is based in Honolulu, Hawaii. As a government-sanctioned entity, the East-West Center is itself credible. Its mission statement would not promote a bias in Wang’s article; it is safe to assume that her opinions are her own and have been formed according to her analyses of data rather than the wish to fulfill an agenda.

Evaluation:

Author Wang Feng makes an excellent case in her article “Can China Afford to Continue Its One-Child Policy?” for China’s need to alter its “one-child” family planning policy lest it face increasingly dire consequences. Wang achieves this primarily through an exemplary use of statistics that justify her claims. These claims themselves are well-formulated and systematically relate to, and support, the primary viewpoint espoused by the argument. The warrant is not explicitly stated, but sufficient backing is given throughout the article that those who object to it will find ample justification in the course of their reading. I find, then, that the argument is not weakened for the lack of an explicitly-stated warrant.

The statistics that pervade Wang’s paper are all cited through footnotes. Whilst this is not strictly an in-text citation, it affords the reader the knowledge of precisely what data comes from what source. This has the same positive effect on credibility as full in-text citations, and serves to strengthen the argument’s integrity through appeals to ethos. Also enhancing credibility is the author’s acknowledgement of opposing viewpoints. She recognizes the Chinese’s government’s reasons for preserving the one-child policy in its current form, and does not disparage or otherwise try to invalidate either the government or its motivations. That said, Wang offers a response that supports her view and further proves its validity. This is again done with no rancour or inflammatory language.

Overall, Wang presents here an excellent, well-organised argument that appeals to the reader on multiple levels and does not contradict itself. She allows the data to speak largely for itself, and for me, these data are the argument’s primary strength, as they are presented both appropriately and with thorough citation.