I've highlighted in blue what I think is argument. I'll reproduce the stripped version again, and put my comments in italics.
There will be a demonstration in Seattle during the meeting of the WTO this month.
Just a factual statement.
The delegates of the WTO are not used to having demonstrations accompany their meetings.
The MAI was derailed by France's withdrawal, which was forced by activism. The derailment of the MAI has encouraged activists.
Factual statement. (Note a 'factual statement' is not the same as a fact. It may be true or not.)
Activists have been planning demonstrations since September. Opposition comes from diverse quarters, some better known than others, including Ralph Nader, who is very visible in organization particularly at colleges and universities.
The MAI gives foreigners legal status equal to domestic investors. Countries choosing to sign such a treaty agree to admit foreign investment. Direct investment creates jobs. Rich countries have more capital to invest than the poor countries. So the rich countries will send their capital to the poor countries. This capital will create wealth and make the poor nations wealthier.
What are the arguments here?
There are three conclusions.
Consider argument (1): Direct investment creates jobs. What are the premises offered as proof of this conclusion? There are none. It is assumed without argument.
Argument 2): Rich countries will send their capital to poor countries. Premise: Rich countries have more capital to invest. Whether this conclusion is true or not, the argument:
Rich countries have more capital to invest than poor countries.
Therefore, rich countries will invest in poor countries.
Argument 3): The capital will create wealth and make the poor nations wealthier. Again no premises are offered as proof. It is assumed without argument.
The activists who are protesting the WTO press for controls on pollution emissions. Reducing pollution emissions would close factories in the Third World and harm the poor. The activists who are protesting the WTO are against biotechnology. Biotechnology is good for poor farmers. Therefore the activists who are protesting the WTO are harming the poor.
One argument, really, with two proofs. The conclusion is that activism against the WTO harms the poor. The premises
And the parallel argument with the same conclusion:
In this case, both arguments have valid form. But the premises are pretty fishy, aren't they?
The activists protest the WTO because they have never been poor. They cannot understand the poor. They hate the rich corporations that deliver wealth to the poor.
Factual statements, and nasty ones at that.
Privatization is unstoppable. Increasing numbers of people are beginning to recognize privatization is unstoppable.
This is the appeal to authority, something like saying "god has willed privatization to happen and everybody knows it"
Poverty is caused by third world elites.
Third World elites retain power by keeping out multinational corporations. The MAI and liberalization of trade favors multinational corporations. It therefore hurts third world elites' ability to retain power.
This one is interesting. The conclusion: Trade liberalization alleviates poverty. The premises
This line of reasoning is actually completely valid. Again, what do you think of the premises?
The activist groups seek to reduce the power of multinational corporations. They have forced corporations to justify themselves. But corporations remain in power.
No reasoning going on. Narrative or factual statements.
Clinton demanded that labor and environmental policies be in the trade agreements. He is trying to keep the MAI from being discussed. He is therefore a weak leader and the activism is partly his fault.
Incorrect factual statements and an unconnected conclusion. But I suppose it could be reasoning, as follows:
Although what Clinton's strength or weakness has to do with anything is not clarified.
The activists will not be stopped from demonstrating even if their demands are met because they are doing it for fun.
Just a statement. Although we could be gracious and pretend it was reasoning as follows:
Although these are buried assumptions, not offered, without any corroboration in any case.
So much for the Wall Street Journal.