The Statue Letter and the Counter-Letter
To the editor: The statue of Elias Ward in the town square should be removed. Ward's sculptures are aesthetically accomplished, but the man himself was a prominent advocate of forced sterilization. Any public monument honors its subject, and honoring a eugenicist legitimizes his views. The statue was erected in 1920 by popular subscription, but popularity does not make a viewpoint morally acceptable. Some residents argue that the statue has artistic merit and should remain as a historical artifact. However, the question is not whether Ward could sculpt; it is whether the town should continue to confer honor on him. The council should vote to relocate the statue to a museum, where it can be studied without being celebrated.' A council member who supports removal also reads a counter-letter: 'The statue was paid for by 1,200 residents and has stood for a century. Removing it erases local history.'
1. Identify the letter's main conclusion and map its argument structure.
Read the worked answer
The main conclusion is that the council should relocate the Ward statue to a museum (i.e., remove it from the town square). The argument has two premises: Ward was a prominent eugenicist, and public monuments honor their subjects; therefore honoring Ward legitimizes his views. A secondary premise is that artistic merit does not outweigh this honor. The letter anticipates and rejects two counterarguments: popularity (1920 subscription) and artistic merit. The conclusion is normative: the town should stop conferring honor. Mapping this structure reveals that the letter's force depends on the premise that public monuments necessarily honor their subjects, not merely commemorate them.
2. What is the function of the sentence 'the question is not whether Ward could sculpt; it is whether the town should continue to confer honor on him'?
Read the worked answer
The sentence functions as a concession-and-redirect. The letter concedes Ward's artistic skill ('could sculpt') but reframes the issue away from aesthetic quality toward the moral question of public honor. This preempts the counterargument that the statue has artistic merit. It also clarifies the letter's criterion: the relevant question is not the artist's talent but the town's ongoing endorsement. By shifting the criterion, the letter makes the artistic-merit defense irrelevant rather than false. The sentence is thus a strategic move in the argument, not a factual claim.
3. Does the counter-letter's point about local history and 1,200 subscribers address the letter's argument? Explain.
Read the worked answer
It does not directly address the letter's central premise. The counter-letter asserts that removal would 'erase local history' and notes popular funding. But the letter already concedes popular subscription and argues that popularity does not make a viewpoint morally acceptable. The counter-letter does not engage with the claim that public monuments confer honor or that honoring a eugenicist legitimizes his views. It changes the subject to historical preservation. Unless the counter-letter can show that the statue's historical value outweighs the honor concern, it talks past the argument. A strong response would need to challenge the honor premise itself.