this essay is clear and compelling．the writer points out the courtty board's faulty reasoning and the pitfalls of such reasoning, ending with a strong admonishment． The argument contains no errors in English usage or mechanics．
Caught between the county administrator's call for a 1 percent reduction in wages and the union’s call for a 4 percent increase， the county board compromised on 2.5 percent increase，halfway between the two，as well as a slight take—back by the county in health costs．Although the county board was well meaning，a compromise like this is no compromise at all．
　　The union，s position was unreasonable from the start．It is not reasonable to expect what you have received in past years if the money is no longer there．Nevertheless，the union probably started at that place in order to open negotiations．Unfortunately，the county board fell into a classic middle— ground fallacy，assuming that the middle ground between the two extremes must be the correct place to be．This would only work if the county administrator called for a reduction knowing that it would never fly，and hoping that some middle ground would be reached．There is no evidence that this is the case．The county board，and the union，would have to assume that the county administrator' s numbers , as suggested t were the numbers required to avoid layoffs．The county administrator called for the reduction because of the existing budget deficit．Any amount tacked on above that reduced level would，presumably，necessitate layoffs．
　　By compromising on a 2．5 percent increase，the county board ensured a need for sanitation—worker layoffs．By agreeing as well to a take—back in health costs，the board ensured an even greater impact on their budget in years to come．Since they do represent the county taxpayers，they would have done better to work a bit longer to negotiate a figure closer to that of the county administrator’s．
　　We are used to assuming that the point precisely between A and B is the best compromise between A and B．Children negotiate that way all the time，splitting the difference to avoid hard feelings．Our representatives are not children，and we should require more from them than a simple acceptance of a middle—ground solution．