UNIV 101 Fall 2018
Argumentative Research Paper
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to allow you to practice writing a university level argumentative
research paper. It will help to develop your research skills, report writing skills, persuasive writing skills,
and attention to detail. You will receive support from university services, including the Writing and
Communication Centre and the Library, to help you research and write your paper.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this assignment, students will:
•
•
•
•
Be able to use journal databases to find relevant and reputable research articles
Be able to write persuasively using research as evidence to support their claims
Have practiced writing in a format suitable for the university level
Have practiced developing proper and full citations using APA format
Instructions
Write an argumentative essay on one of the topics listed below using research from journal databases,
books, and other reputable sources. Your essay should be 1500-2000 words. Part of the assignment
involves writing concisely, so make sure to adhere to this word limit. Do not include your name
anywhere on the assignment.
Your assignment should include the following information:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Student number
Course name and number
Title
Date
Page numbers
Word count
Topics
1. Some university students have existing physical or mental disabilities that make it more difficult
for them to succeed in their studies. As a result, Canadian universities have been mandated to
provide accommodations to these students to ensure fairness. Do Canadian universities provide
enough support, too much support, or too little support to these students to ensure fairness?
Support your response with evidence from journal articles, books, and other reputable sources.
2. Should the Canadian government pay the tuition for all students’ post-secondary education?
Explain why or why not. What are the consequences of your response? Use references to
journal articles, books, and other reputable sources to support your argument.
Deadline
The deadline for this assignment is November 11 at 11:59 pm. Submit your assignment in doc, docx, rtf,
or pdf form only. You must submit your assignment to the Argumentative Research Paper dropbox on
LEARN. Assignments will not be accepted by email except under exceptional circumstances. Consult the
course syllabus for information on late assignments.
Citations
Part of the assignment involves practicing the use of proper citation. Cite all of your materials in APA
format (more information will be provided in class). Submissions with improper or missing citations will
be given a penalty of up to 10%.
More Information
What is a research paper?
A research paper is a written piece of work that is intended to showcase research that has been done in
the relevant subject area. It identifies key findings and/or key arguments in the literature.
What is an argumentative paper?
An argumentative paper is a written piece of work that is intended to persuade the audience into taking
a certain position on a topic. Argumentative papers give reasons for the reader to agree with the writer.
What is an argumentative research paper?
An argumentative research paper combines a research paper with an argumentative paper. It uses
research as evidence to persuade the reader to take a particular position. For example, an
argumentative research paper might use the results of clinical interviews with gender non-conforming
individuals to argue that society is neglecting to treat gender non-conforming individuals with the
dignity that they deserve. An argumentative research paper is not a reflective essay. Generally, personal
anecdotes and personal experiences are not accepted as research.
Toward an End to the Problematic Exploitation of Payday Loan Users
20600000
UNIV 101
November 11, 2018
Word count: 2108
1
Payday loans are short-term loans for less than $1500 that are due on or around the
borrower’s next payday. Payday lenders usually offer good customer service and convenience, as
they require little more than a recent pay stub, current bank statement, personal cheque, and ten
minutes of the borrower’s time (Ben-Ishai, 2008). However, payday loans are extremely expensive
when compared to traditional credit products, such as credit cards and lines of credit. Since payday
lenders typically serve low-to-middle income individuals, many are concerned that the industry
problematically exploits vulnerable individuals. This paper will show that payday loan users are
problematically exploited because of their level of vulnerability and positive of disadvantage.
I begin with a brief background of the current federal and provincial regulations on payday
lending. I then establish that many payday loan users are vulnerable and show that these individuals
are problematically exploited according to Mayer’s (2003) sufficiency standard for problematic
exploitation. From there, I argue that preventing this problematic exploitation should not involve
banning payday loans.
Payday Loans in Canada
The Canadian payday loan industry is regulated by federal and provincial governments.
Currently, Canada’s criminal interest rate is any effective interest rate above 60% per annum
(Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 347). However, loans for less than $1500 for a period of
less than 62 days are exempt from this criminal interest rate, as long as the lender is authorized
and regulated by the province in which they operate (s. 347.1). This exemption effectively transfers
responsibility for payday loan regulation to individual provinces. The Canadian government
decided to allow this exemption because payday loans were increasingly popular, thereby
suggesting that many Canadians were willing to pay interest rates above 60% per annum for access
to cash. If the payday loan industry were not regulated, a number of class action law suits against
2
payday loan companies could succeed and result in payouts to consumers that “could potentially
bankrupt the payday loan industry” (Library of Parliament, 2006). Provincial regulation would
prevent this outcome and allow payday lenders to continue providing a seemingly valuable service
to Canadians.
Most provinces have chosen to regulate the payday lending industry. Current regulations
usually require full and accurate disclosure of the borrowing terms and conditions, set interest rate
caps, and limit rollovers, which occur when a loan is extended for another period in exchange for
additional interest and fees. Current interest rate caps range from $15 per $100 borrowed in Alberta
(Fair Trading Act, RSA 2000 cF-2, s. 124.61) to $25 per $100 borrowed in Prince Edward Island
(Payday Loans Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. P-2.1, s. 24). For reference, a payday loan that costs $21
per $100 borrowed results in an annual interest rate of 546% (“Payday loans: Market trends”) and
the maximum interest rate of 60% per annum translates to $2.30 per $100 borrowed on a 14-day
loan (“Provincial Government Will Not Regulate Payday Loan Companies”).
Payday Loans and Vulnerability
The extremely high interest rates on payday loans are a cause for concern. These loans
become even more concerning when we consider the individuals who use them. A recent study by
the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (“Payday loans: Market trends”) found that over half
of the payday loan users surveyed had household incomes below $55,000, were repeat payday loan
users, and did not know that payday loans were more expensive than traditional credit products.
Most obtained payday loans of $500 or less. 86 percent of respondents typically used the loan to
cover necessary expenses, with 41 percent using it to cover necessary and expected expenses, such
as rent or utility bills. Compared to the general Canadian population, survey respondents had little
3
in savings and limited access to a credit card or line of credit. 27 percent were denied loans from
banks or credit unions and 74 percent reported that payday loans were their best available option.
These demographics suggest that most payday loan users lack sufficient financial
resources, as they cannot cover necessary and recurring expenses, such as rent and utility bills,
without taking out loans. These individuals turn to payday loans when they have few good options
for obtaining necessary cash. Further, the data suggests that many payday loan users lack financial
literacy, as the majority do not know that payday loans are more expensive than traditional loans.
These circumstances leave users susceptible to payday lenders’ promises of fast cash with few
conditions and raise serious concerns about the problematic exploitation of vulnerable individuals
due to high interest rates.
Payday Loans and Exploitation
Mayer (2003) offers a compelling account of problematic exploitation as it relates to
payday loans. He argues that individuals are problematically exploited when they meet two
conditions. First, they must begin in a position of disadvantage. Second, they must pay too much
or gain too little from a transaction. He claims, “[w]hat one should get is what one would get if
one did not begin the transaction at a strategic disadvantage” (p. 200).
Mayer then identifies two standards of problematic exploitation: sufficiency and relative
advantage. On the sufficiency standard, individuals are in a position of disadvantage when they
lack sufficient resources. They are then problematically exploited when they pay more than those
who are not disadvantaged when obtaining these resources. Applying the sufficiency standard to
payday loans, disadvantaged individuals are those without sufficient financial resources and they
are problematically exploited when they pay more for a loan than those who are not disadvantaged
4
with respect to financial resources. Mayer states that the criminal interest rate is a reasonable
benchmark for determining when one pays too much for a loan. Therefore, according to Mayer’s
sufficiency standard, payday loan users are problematically exploited when they lack sufficient
financial resources and take out payday loans, as all such loans charge more than the criminal
interest rate. The sufficiency standard advocates for regulation on interest rate caps to ensure that
payday loan users do not pay more than the criminal interest rate.
On the relative advantage standard, individuals are again considered to be disadvantaged
when they lack sufficient resources. However, different from the sufficiency standard, individuals
are not problematically exploited until their short-term and long-term interests conflict. The
relative advantage standard recognizes that an expensive payday loan may still be the best shortterm option for disadvantaged individuals who would otherwise have to pay even higher fees for
bouncing cheques or late bill payments. On the relative advantage standard, payday loan users are
problematically exploited only when they pay more for a payday loan than they would have for
the next best alternative. Therefore, the first few payday loans will be permitted under the relative
advantage standard, as these loans may cost the user less than, for example, bouncing a cheque.
However, once the cumulative cost of payday loans exceeds the cost of bouncing a cheque,
additional payday loans become problematically exploitative. Thus, the relative advantage
standard permits short-term payday loans, but advocates for regulation against rollovers.
Mayer argues that the sufficiency standard is highly intuitive, but it recommends restricting
access to cash for those who most desperately need it. This result is problematic because one could
reasonably accept the unfairness of a payday loan transaction when this unfairness is the best
available option. Mayer suggests that the relative advantage standard avoids this problem.
5
Ultimately, he settles on a hybrid view, whereby we adopt the sufficiency standard but allow shortterm exceptions when payday loans are in the best interests of the borrower.
The Unfairness of the Relative Advantage Standard
There is much that is correct about Mayer’s analysis, especially as it pertains to the
sufficiency standard. However, the relative advantage standard is too permissive. It points out that
expensive payday loans can be in the borrower’s best short-term interest because the alternatives
are even more expensive. This point is simply a fact. However, this fact does not lead to the
conclusion that short-term payday loans are not problematically exploitive, as the best available
option can still be a problematically exploitative one. Instead, the fact that payday loans are often
vulnerable individuals’ best option highlights the unfairness of a market that permits desperate
individuals to become further disadvantaged. The unfairness involved with payday loans has been
argued to be predatory (Johnson, 2002), unconscionable (Bruch, 2001) and as severe as a Charter
violation of the security of the person (Davidson, 2011). This unfairness is the result of a market
that does not offer cheaper credit options for individuals who need them. By permitting
disadvantaged individuals to access payday loans, the relative advantage standard allows the
disadvantaged to bear the burdens of this market failure. This outcome is morally unacceptable.
As a result, I adopt only the sufficiency standard of exploitation and reject the relative advantage
standard.
Adopting only the sufficiency standard means that most Canadian payday loan users meet
both conditions for problematic exploitation. First, they are disadvantaged because they do not
have sufficient financial resources to cover necessary expenses, such as rent and utility bills.
Second, they are problematically exploited because they pay too much for loans. That is, they pay
more than somebody without a disadvantage would pay.
6
Against an Effective Ban on Payday Loans
To prevent problematic exploitation, the sufficiency standard advocates for matching the
maximum payday loan interest rate to the criminal interest rate. This solution would prevent
disadvantaged individuals from paying more for loans than individuals who are not disadvantaged.
While this solution sounds simple enough, consider the compelling evidence that lowering payday
loan interest rates would drive payday lenders out of business. Flannery and Samolyk (2005) find
that it costs payday lenders $11 to $14 per $100 borrowed to provide a loan, without including
significant general and administrative expenses that each payday loan shop must pay to its parent
company. Given that payday loan regulations permit maximum interest charges of $15 to $25 per
$100 borrowed, payday lenders operate on small profit margins. Lowering the annual interest rate
from approximately 500% per annum to just 60% per annum shrinks profit margins substantially,
such that it would effectively drive payday lenders out of business.
A proponent of the sufficiency standard might accept this effective ban on the basis of
problematic exploitation. Such has been the position of the provincial government of
Newfoundland and Labrador. In a 2010 news release, the Honourable Kevin O’Brien, Minister of
Government Services, stated that “‘we could not in good conscience implement regulations that
potentially could result in annual interest rates equating to nearly 550 per cent being charged to
consumers in our province’” (“Provincial Government Will Not Regulate Payday Loan
Companies”).
However, this application of the sufficiency standard could have devastating consequences
for the same disadvantaged group that it seeks to protect. One negative effect of restricting access
to payday loans is that some borrowers will turn to other expensive loan options, including online
options that are more difficult to regulate (Bhutta et al., 2016; Edmiston, 2011). This effect is
7
unsurprising, given that many payday loan users have already been denied loans from banks and
credit unions. Some express worries that borrowers may even resort to loan sharks, who threaten
violence if loans are not repaid on time (Edmiston, 2011; Kitching and Starky, 2006).
Banning payday loans can also lower consumer credit scores. Since payday loans are not
usually tracked by credit companies, borrowers can use these loans to pay other loans that are
tracked. When payday loans are inaccessible, individuals do not have this option and make late
payments more often (Edmiston, 2011). Due to lower credit scores as a result of these late
payments, disadvantaged individuals are even more limited in their loan options and must pay
higher interest rates on the loans that they are able to obtain. Additionally, bans on payday loans
can increase rates of bankruptcy filings (Morgan and Strain, 2008), which limits one’s loan options
even further, though the causal connection between payday loans and bankruptcy is generally
unclear (Bhutta et al., 2015; Martin and Tong, 2010; Skiba and Tobacman, 2011).
Overall, effective bans on payday loans do not address problematic exploitation because
its users are likely to turn to worse solutions for obtaining cash. Therefore, these bans should not
be supported, which means that interest rates on payday loans should not be further reduced. We
must look elsewhere to reduce problematic exploitation in the payday loan industry.
Conclusion
Payday loan users lack sufficient financial resources and pay far more for loans than
individuals who are not similarly disadvantaged. As a result, they are problematically exploited by
the payday loan industry. However, the solution is not to ban payday loans, as doing so will likely
result in even worse outcomes for current payday loan users.
8
Works Cited
Ben-Ishai, Stephanie. "Regulating Payday Lenders in Canada: Drawing on American Lessons."
Banking & Finance Law Review 23.3 (2008): 323-76.
Bhutta, Neil, Jacob Goldin, and Tatiana Homonoff. "Consumer Borrowing After Payday Loan
Bans." Journal of Law and Economics 59.1 (2016): 225-59.
Bhutta, Neil, Paige Marta Skiba, and Jeremy Tobacman. "Payday Loan Choices and
Consequences." Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 47.2-3 (2015): 223-60.
Bruch, Charles A. "Taking the Pay Out of Payday Loans: Putting an End to the Usurious and
Unconscionable Interest Rates Charged by Payday Lenders." University of Cincinnati Law
Review 69.4 (2001): 1257-88.
Criminal
Code
(R.S.C.,
1985,
c.
C-46).
Government
of
Canada.
http://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-77.html#docCont ed., 2016.
Davidson, Mark A. "No Conscience to Shock: The Ethical Dimensions of Non-Discretionary
Personal Debt Assumption." International Journal of Applied Philosophy 25.2 (2011): 13149.
Edmiston, Kelly D. "Could Restrictions on Payday Lending Hurt Consumers?" Economic Review
- Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (2011): 63-93.
Fair
Trading
Act
(RSA
2000
cF-2).
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/F02.pdf ed., 2016.
9
Province
of
Alberta.
Flannery, Mark, and Katherine Samolyk. "Payday Lending: Do the Costs Justify the Price?" FDIC
Center for Financial Research Working Paper No. 2005-09 (2005): 1-40.
Johnson, Creola. "Payday Loans: Shrewd Business Or Predatory Lending?" Minnesota Law
Review 87.1 (2002): 1-152.
Kitching, Andrew, and Sheena Starky. "Payday Loan Companies in Canada: Determining the
Public Interest." Parliamentary Information and Research Service (2006): 1-17.
Library of Parliament. Legislative Summary of Bill C-26: An Act to Amend the Criminal Code
(Criminal
Interest
Rate)
(LS-541E).
Government
of
Canada,
2006.
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/39/1/c26-e.pdf
Martin, Nathalie, and Koo Im Tong. "Double Down-and-Out: The Connection between Payday
Loans and Bankruptcy." Southwestern Law Review 39 (2010): 785-806.
Mayer, Robert. "Payday Loans and Exploitation." Public Affairs Quarterly 17.3 (2003): 197-217.
Morgan, Donald P., and Michael R. Strain. "Payday Holiday: How Households Fare After Payday
Credit Bans." Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports (2008): 1-47.
"Payday Loans: Market Trends." Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. 25 Oct 2016 2016.
.
Payday Loans Act (R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. P-2.1). Government of Prince Edward Island.
https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/sites/default/files/legislation/p02-1g.pdf ed., 2015.
10
"Provincial Government Will Not Regulate Payday Loan Companies." Government of
Newfoundland
and
Labrador
-
Canada.
15
June
2010.
.
Skiba, Paige Marta, and Jeremy Tobacman. "Do Payday Loans Cause Bankruptcy?" Vanderbilt
University Law School Law & Economics Working Paper Number 11-13 (2011): 1-50.
11
Excellent (8-10 points)
Cogency: How compelling is this paper?
(10 points)
The thesis is directly supported by at least
one argument that is valid and free of
errors. All claims are justified as well as
space allows. Points of contention or
objections are dealt with effectively. The
paper demonstrates insightful and
sophisticated analysis
The paper masterfully uses journal articles,
books, and/or other reputable sources to
Comprehension: How well does this paper justify its claims. The analysis of these
engage and explain its sources?
(10
sources is highly skilled. All explanations
points)
are helpful and properly detailed. Sources
and quotations are integrated into the
paper highly effectively.
The thesis is clear, explicit, and located
appropriately. The paper includes a road
Composition: Does this paper's structure map in the introduction. The paper uses
enhance its readability and argumentative excellent signposting and has excellent
force? (10 points)
organization. The purpose of each section is
abundantly clear. Each section of the paper
transitions smoothly to the next.
Clarity: How easy is it to read and
understand this paper? (10 points)
The writing mechanics are flawless. Ideas
are expressed concisely - every word has
been carefully chosen. The writing style is
sophisticated and exceeds expectations.
Citations (up to 4 points off)
Proper APA citation style is followed at all
times. All words and ideas that are not the
student's are cited. In-text citations and
reference list citations are properly
formatted. The Works Cited page is
properly formatted. All sources in the
reference list have a corresponding in-text
citation and vice versa. (0 marks deducted)
Note: If your submission shows no signs of attempting to cite properly, your paper will receive a grade
Good (7 points)
Satisfactory (5-6 points)
The thesis is directly supported by at least
one argument that is valid. Claims are
generally plausible and supported well.
Important objections or counterpoints are
anticipated but not fully dealt with. The
arguments may not get to the core issue at
hand.
The thesis is indirectly supported by at
least one valid argument. There may be
leaps or gaps in reasoning. Claims are
clearly stated but inadequately justified.
Important objections or counterpoints are
not anticipated.
The paper uses journal articles, books,
and/or other reputable sources to justify its
claims. The analysis of these sources adds
credibility to the author's claims. Some
explanations require more detail. Some
interpretations of the sources require more
charity. Sources and quotations are
integrated mostly effectively.
The paper uses journal articles, books,
and/or other reputable sources to justify
its claims. The analysis of these sources is
limited. Most explanations require more
detail. Interpretations of the sources
require more charity. Sources and
quotations are sometimes used
ineffectively.
The thesis is identifiable but could be more
explicit or better located. The paper
includes a road map in the introduction.
The paper is generally organized in a way
that enhances logical flow of the ideas.
Signposting and transitions could be better
used. Each section of the paper provides
important explanations that support the
thesis.
The thesis is identifiable but could be more
detailed. It could also be more explicit or
better located. The paper includes a road
map but it is integrated ineffectively. The
paper is somewhat organized in a way that
enhances logical flow of ideas. Signposting
and transitions are inappropriately placed
or missing. Some sections of the paper
could be omitted.
There are spelling/grammar issues, but they
do not impact clarity and are infrequent.
There are some questionable word choices
or stylistic issues. The writing is mostly easy
to read and understand.
There are issues with grammar and/or
spelling that sometimes hinder clarity. The
writing style is somewhat academic. Some
sentences are hard to parse. Some
sentences are confusing solely because of
the way they are written.
Proper APA citation style is followed most
times. All words and ideas that are not the
student's are cited. In-text citations and
reference list citations are usually
formatted correctly. The Works Cited page
is properly formatted. Most sources in the
reference list have a corresponding in-text
citation and vice versa. (1 point deducted)
Citation style is sometimes in APA format.
Some citations are missing where they are
needed. In-text citations and reference list
citations are sometimes formatted
correctly. The Works Cited page is
formatted incorrectly. Sources in the
reference list sometimes correspond with
sources in in-text citations. (3 marks
deducted)
to cite properly, your paper will receive a grade of 0 and your work will be referred to the Associate Dean under Policy 71.
Below Expectations (< 5 points)
The thesis is not supported by a valid
argument. There are leaps and gaps in
reasoning, logical errors, and/or fallacies.
Claims may be irrelevant, confusing, or
unjustified. Important objections or
counterpoints are not anticipated. The
analytic goals of the paper are unclear.
The paper uses journal articles, books,
and/or other reputable sources but does
not demonstrate how the sources justify
the paper's claims. The analysis of these
sources is inaccurate, confusing, or missing
altogether. Interpretations of the sources
require more charity. Sources and
quotations are not integrated effectively.
The paper has no thesis, or the thesis
requires intense work to locate or interpret.
The paper is disorganized. The purpose of
the paper is unclear. Large sections of the
paper should be omitted.
There are issues with grammar and/or
spelling that impact clarity. The writing style
is too casual and/or inappropriate for the
university level. Some sections are
confusing solely because of the way they
are written.
Citation style is not in APA format or
citations are usually missing where they are
needed. In-text citations and reference list
citations are usually formatted incorrectly.
The Works Cited page is formatted
incorrectly or is missing. Sources in the
reference list do not correspond with
sources in in-text citations. (4 marks
deducted)
he Associate Dean under Policy 71.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment