The following appeared in a letter to the Grandview City Council from a local business leader.

“During last year’s severe drought, when the water supply in the Grandview city reservoir fell to an extremely low level, the city council imposed much more rigid water-rationing rules. But just after these rules were imposed, industrial growth in the area declined. This clearly shows that the new rationing rules have hurt industry in Grandview. Therefore, to promote the health of the local economy, the city council should now stop water rationing.”

In the letter to the Grandview City Council, the local business leader says that water-rationing should be stopped because the new rules of water-rationing were very rigid and the industrial growth has declined due to it. He has come to this conclusion because the industrial growth declined last year when the city was hit with a severe draught, which led to these rigid water-rationing rules. However, the argument presented by the business leader is based on weak assumptions.

It can be argued that the leader does not have a solid ground to support his argument. He puts up his point on the assumption that the rigid water-rationing rules have had an adverse effect on industrial growth. These rules were imposed last year when the city was hit with a severe draught and the city reservoir’s level fell extremely low. As it was observed just after these rules were imposed the industrial growth in the city declined. However, these two facts can be completely independent of one another. It is likely that the industrial growth has been affected due to other reasons and not due to the water-rationing rules. The business leader simply puts two and two together to come to this conclusion. However, in the following discussion it can be seen how these two facts can be completely independent of each other.

As mentioned, the decline in industrial growth could be due to other reasons as well. There could have been an increase in the price or shortage of raw material for these industries due to the draught. In case of absence of raw materials, the production would also be reduced to a great extent. Therefore, the industrial output is sure to decline. Similarly, there could be other factors like increase in the prices of goods, decrease in the local demand of these products, lack of infrastructure for the growth of industries or government’s trade policies. It is also possible that there are cheap and durable foreign substitutes in the market for the industrial products. People will prefer these substitutes to the industry made products, which will reduce the overall demand of these goods. Hence, the industries will not gain any profits that would eventually decline their growth.

The business leader suggests that water-rationing should be stopped to promote the health of local economy. However, this is not a good solution of the problem. Water rationing is done to ensure judicial use of the city reservoir water. Considering that there has been severe draught last year, which resulted in lowering of the water level, it is possible that the city is hit with such draughts again. In such a case, if water-rationing is not done it will result in the wastage of water. This will further lower the precious water level and can worsen the condition of draught. Water-rationing ensures that it is used properly and not wasted. It is done keeping in mind the scarcity of water and future needs of the whole city. Therefore, stopping water-rationing cannot be a good solution. Instead, the rules can be made a little relaxing in periods when there is no draught. Moreover, all the factors that affect industrial growth should be looked into so that the real cause of the decline can be identified. Accordingly, a solution can be reached which does not require the rules of water-rationing to be rolled back.

The question that the business leader should consider before giving such a statement is that if there were no water-rationing rules, would it have made any difference to industrial growth? Only by identifying the real problem can there be a lasting and effective solution. Therefore, the discussion given above is enough to say that the given argument lacks logic and reasoning.