We read this editorial in class. Here's our first attempt (it's not perfect!) at the 10-step process and at changing those 10-steps into paragraph form.

Dailybulletin.com     10/18/2001  "Ballot Measure Wrong Way to Fix Worker's Comp"

1. The author's conclusion is that a ballot measure is the wrong way to fix California's worker's compensation law.
2. The author's premises are that:
    1. Fixing worker's compensation law is a complex problem.
    2. Complex problems cannot be solved through a ballot measure.
    3. Any solution to the problems with the worker's compensation law will require balancing competing special interests.
    4. It is impossible to balance the competing special interests in the worker's compensation law through a ballot measure.
3. The author assumes that if a problem cannot be solved through a ballot measure, then a ballot measure is the wrong way to fix that problem.
4. The author's premises that claim complex problems cannot be solved through a ballot measure and that it is impossible to balance the competing special interests in the worker's compensation law through a ballot measure seem questionable.  While it may be that, in practice, ballot measures are one-sided and do not typically balance competing special interests, there does not seem to be any reason why this should be impossible, as the author states.  It is also unclear why complex problems cannot be solved though ballot measures.  This premise seems to be in need of further support.
5. The author's assumption may sound obvious, but it could be that some problems are so difficult to solve that even though a ballot measure would not totally solve them, the ballot measure might do more to improve the situation than anything else.  In light of this, the author's assumption seems doubtful.
6. The author does a good job defining the terms used in the argument.
7. It would be helpful to know if other comparably difficult legislative problems have been addressed through ballot measures in the past.  How successful were these ballot measures, if they passed?
8. The author sums up by saying that California's workers "deserve better than an impatient rush to the ballot box."  The characterization of the ballot measure supporters as "impatient" seems designed to bias the reader.  The phrase "deserve better" seems also designed to arouse sympathy for California's workers, when it is not clear that they would be harmed by a ballot measure designed to improve the worker's compensation laws.
9. If the author's premises and assumption were true, the conclusion would have to follow, so the author's argument is valid.
10. The author's argument is not sound though, as the premises mentioned above seem false and the assumption also seems false.
 
    On October 18, 2001 the Ontario Daily Bulletin's editorial staff argued that a ballot measure is the wrong way to fix California's worker's compensation law.  They cited in support of this conclusion that any solution to the problems with the worker's compensation law will require balancing competing special interests, and they claimed that it is impossible to balance these competing special interests through a ballot measure. The authors did a good job defining the terms used in the argument, and provided some background information about a failed legislative proposal and the extent to which it would have raised worker's compensation benefits.
    But, the Bulletin's argument is unsound.  First, they assume that if a problem cannot be solved through a ballot measure, then a ballot measure is the wrong way to fix that problem. This assumption may sound obvious, but some problems, like California's worker's compensation law, are so difficult to solve that even though a ballot measure would not totally solve them, the ballot measure could do more to improve the situation than anything else.  Also, while it may be that, in practice, ballot measures are one-sided and do not typically balance competing special interests, there does not seem to be any reason why this should be impossible, as the Bulletin states.
    In summarizing their position, the Bulletin said that California's workers "deserve better than an impatient rush to the ballot box."  This seems designed only to arouse our sympathy for California's workers and to cause us to ignore a ballot measure designed to improve the worker's compensation laws, thereby helping California's workers.  In place of rhetoric, it would have been more helpful if the Bulletin had addressed whether other comparably difficult legislative problems have been handled through ballot measures in the past.  How successful were these ballot measures, if they passed?  Perhaps we should be impatient with those who would ignore a means to improve California's worker's compensation laws while they hold out for a possibly unattainable total solution.