California Lottery Case State Lotteries Definitely Let

¶ … California Lottery Case

State lotteries definitely let a lot of people down. Everyday, thousands put in their cash hoping to win big, but only a few do. State lotteries have thus long been a hotbed of controversy, as Carl Ingram shows in his 1999 article which posits that the California Lottery actually targets poor and working class players based on weak statistics that supposedly show a disproportionate amount of working class players compared to other economic classes. However, the article's argument is based more so on personal opinion than actual statistical facts, and thus the basic premise that the Lottery does specifically target working class poor is not validly proven.

Ingram's article examines the beliefs of a few high ranking California gambling officials in order to present the argument that the lottery does more damage than good. Essentially, the article is arguing that California Lottery statistics on the average income levels of players do not appropriately represent the income level of California residents in general. Ingram's primary premise is that too many players of the California lottery are poor and working class, thus the conclusion suggests that the state-run lottery is specifically targeting the poor in strategies to raise revenue. Here, he states that despite statistics showing a close representation of players to the California population, there is more working class poor playing than there should be. Data did show that 35% of players did make less than $25,000 a year, which would place them below the poverty line (Ingram 1999). Ingram uses this to claim that the Lottery is actually benefiting from targeting these disadvantaged players.

Data used in the article is interesting because it is from California State Lottery Board surveys. Actually, the more valid data presented in the article by the California Lottery disproves the main premise of the article's argument. The statistics provided by the California Lottery actually "suggests that the ethnicity and household incomes of players virtually reflect the population of California as a whole" (Ingram 1999). Data percentages were just slightly off in comparing ethnicity and socioeconomic classes of players compared to general California residents. The numbers presented of players did almost exactly mirror the more general characteristics of California residents in general. In this, the data presented is actually contradictory of the premises Ingram is providing for the basic underlying argument.

Still, even this data is not entirely reliable. The article shows that the Lottery conducted a survey of "interviews of players as they exited lottery outlets" (Ingram 1999). Asking income data is a sensitive process, and many people might be embarrassed or inclined to exaggerate how much they make annually when asked by a complete stranger. Thus, when collecting data in income, surveys are not always the most reliable strategy -- although they tend to be the easiest. Data collected was not validated through checking on if the actual answers of the participants matched their real income data. Therefore, there was no control measure that validated the data which was collected through self initiated surveys of individuals. This places the general conclusions from the data set in question because of the fact that it is not entirely reliable. Ingram uses this as a measure to set up his argument showing that there is a strategy targeting poor working class that has dominated Lottery processes for years since its inception in California in the late 1980s.

However, this basic premise is weak. There are a number of logical fallacies present within the basic argument of Ingram's article. The most obvious is the fact that the premise that there is a disproportionate amount of working class lottery players is not directly proven with enough evidence to be taken as fact. Therefore, the premise is an "unwarranted assumption. The premise may or may not be true, but it has not been established sufficiently to serve as a premise for the argument" (SGU Productions 2011). Such logical fallacies are common in arguments, especially ones where there is so much controversy and personal opinion clouding the environment. Additional research on common fallacies based on unwarranted assumptions shows that "often people will choose the assumptions that best fit the conclusion they prefer" (SGU Productions 2011). Thus, with the primary premise of the argument being unreliable, the conclusion is just as unreliable. The conclusion is too weak because it is based off a premise that is not proven with sufficient enough data.