23) The False Argument.

There is a thesis being put forward, the first part of which says, "In order to attract the best and the brightest, LANL must compete with Sandia and Livermore................" There are essentially two parts to this:
1) For LANL to compete, it must engage in the highest possible level of Science.
2) Los Alamos is the host town to LANL, Albuquerque is the host town to Sandia, and Oakland is the host town to Livermore. Therefore, in order to attract the best and the brightest, Los Alamos must somehow compete with Albuquerque and Oakland.

However, the argument then concludes: ".............therefore, Los Alamos must provide the same level of amenities and lifestyle as Albuquerque and Oakland or the best and the brightest will not come to Los Alamos -- they will go to Albuquerque or Oakland and Los Alamos will only attract second-rate scientists which, in turn, will reduce LANL to second-rate Science leading to its eventual closure."

This is a False Argument.

The logic is screwy at best. First, the conclusion contains, and is, the premise which makes the argument circular. Second, the under-lying premise is false, creating a reducto ad absurdum by which the entire argument fails. Badly. Let's tear this apart --

a) Albuquerque and Oakland are urban/burban environments and provide the amenities and lifestyle which attach thereto. Thus, (substituting) : "Los Alamos must provide the amenities/lifestyle of the urban/burban environment or the best and the brightest will not come to Los Alamos".

b) This "or" statement is actually an "if - then" statement, to whit: "If Los Alamos does not provide the amenities and lifestyle of the urban/burban environment, then the best and the brightest will not come to Los Alamos".

c) The inverse of (b) is: "If Los Alamos provides the lifestyle and amenities of the urban/burban environment, then the best and the brightest will come to Los Alamos".

d) (c) may be reversed to: "The best and the brightest will come to Los Alamos if it provides the lifestyle and amenities of the urban/burban environment".

e) Since Los Alamos is a laboratory host town, as is Albuqueruque and Oakland, we may then subsitute: "The best and the brightest will come to a national laboratory host town which provides the lifestyle and amenities of the urban/burban environment

f) Since the "if - then" statement derives from an "either - or" statement, the statement becomes "A and not B" thus: "The best and the brightest will come to a national laboratory host town which provides the lifestyle and amenities of the urban/burban environment and the best and the brightest will not come to a national laboratory host town that does not provide the lifestyle and amenities of the urban/burban environment". (Yeah, I know, looks for all the world like an A and not A, but it really is A and not B).

g) Where-in we find the basic premise "The best and brightest will come to the urban/burban environment and the best and the brightest will not come to a non-urban/burban environment" which may be reworked into the following:

h) "The best and the brightest will come if and only if there is an urban/burban lifestyle/amenities environment".

Thus the basic premise of the argument is that the best and the brightest seek/prefer the lifestyle and amenities of the urban/burban environment.

Putting the premise into its proper place in the argument we get "Since the best and the brightest seek/prefer the lifestyle and amenities of the urban/burban environment (premise A), and since Los Alamos must compete with Albuquerque and Oakland for the best and the brightest (premise B), Therefore Los Alamos must provide the lifestyle/amenities of the urban/burban environment."

This is its own logical can of worms. Premise A is unproven, and assumed to be true. The premise is stated as a tautological truth, that all persons included in the set "the best and the brightest" seek/prefer the lifestyle/amenities of the urban/burban environment.

Premise B is likewise unproven and assumed to be true. Without going through all the steps Premise B actually works out to be "The best and the brightest have a choice of either Los Alamos, Albuquerque, or Oakland". This re-work eliminates the phrase "Los Alamos must compete" -- an important distinction.

Setting aside the problem of a conclusion supported by no more than 2 unsupported assumptions, the test of the argument lies in the truth or not of Premise A. If Premise A is true we get: "All best and the brightest prefer the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle. If given a choice of three host towns, they will choose that which best provides the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle."

If Premise A is not true then we get "Some best and brightest prefer the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle and some of the best and brightest prefer something other than the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle." Putting it all together we get:

"The best and the brightest have three laboratory host town choices. Those who prefer the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle will choose accordingly. The rest will choose based on some other factor(s). Los Alamos is a small town whch does not offer the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle. Therefore, Los Alamos will be the choice of some, but not all, of the best and the brightest and the best and brightest who choose Los Alamos will do so based on factors other than the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle."

The False Argument stated at the beginning is sometimes modified thus: the best and the brightest will choose based on The Science and their spouses will choose based on the amenities/lifestyle. This assumes that all spouses of scientists will prefer the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle. Plug "the spouses of the best and the brightest" into the above substituting for "the best and the brightest" and we still wind up in the same place:

"The spouses of the best and the brightest have three laboratory host town choices. Those who prefer the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle will choose accordingly. The rest will choose based on some other factor(s). Los Alamos is a small town whch does not offer the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle. Therefore, Los Alamos will be the choice of some, but not all, of the best and the brightest and the best and brightest who choose Los Alamos will do so based on factors other than the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle."

Reality Check: Los Alamos is a small town. Small towns do not provide the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle since small towns are not urban/burban. If Premise A "all best and brightest prefer the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle" or its alternative "all spouses of the best and brightest prefer the urban/burban amenities/lifestyle" is true, then Los Alamos is eventually screwed. If Premise A is not true, then pursuing policies based on the assumption that Premise A is true will leave Los Alamos equally screwed.

Here's the good news. The False Argument uses the phrase "Los Alamos must compete.....". That brings in the concept of Competitive Advantage -- where Los Alamos has some real opportunities.