The author of this article is incorrect because he believes that moving business around will be harmful, that a football team coming to Los Angeles is a waste of money and it will hurt football fans. The author early on starts out with a Hasty Generalization fallacy by assuming that all football celebrities and people associated with the organization will cause bad publicity. He also assumes that this is bad for Los Angeles, however clearly people enjoy following celebrities like the Kardashians otherwise shows like that wouldn’t get views. The author continues his argument with a non-sequitur. He claims that because adding a franchise just redistributes wealth and doesn’t add, that we would be “cannibalizing” current businesses. However, all that really would happen is some people, instead of say going …show more content…
This also means it wouldn’t hurt the city LA gets the NFL franchise from, as he claims, since the wealth would just be “redistributed” again. He again makes a generalization claiming that having a football team would hurt NFL fans in LA, claiming that tons of NFL fans gather together dressed in their own team’s jerseys. However, he has no evidence backing up this claim. He also assumes that adding an NFL team would ruin this “culture” of rooting for your team, which probably won’t be true for dedicated fans. Also, ruining this culture could be a good thing, bringing together the large city just a bit more, similar to how the Kings winning the Stanley Cup brought LA a bit closer, and hockey has way less fans than football. He also, without any evidence, generalizes that the NFL is this evil beast that will be the only one to benefit. That the NFL wants to “take LA for all it’s worth” however he backs this with no evidence. Just giving a hypothetical situation where they could tr and take advantage of LA, which is an extreme case, and not a good reason to deny the NFL