The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine on lifestyles.
"Two years ago, City L was listed 14th in an annual survey that ranks cities according to the quality of life that can be enjoyed by those living in them. This information will enable people who are moving to the state in which City L is located to confidently identify one place, at least, where schools are good, housing is affordable, people are friendly, the environment is safe, and the arts flourish."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
----------------------------------------------
The argument says that city L is a better place for people relocating to the same state as city L. This conclusion however depends on various questionable assumptions.
Primarily, the argument does not tell us what criterion were considered to rate different cities. The quality of life in a particular city is good does not necesarily tell us that that it is affordable or has good educational prospects. The quality of life in Las Vegas is also considered to be good and happening but the city is known for its glamour and is amongst the costliest cities of United states. Probably more details on how the survey was conducted would help in reaching an accurate conclusion.
Secondly, the extensivity of the survey is not explained at all. More the cities considered in the survey more will be the relevance of its results. What if the survey considers only few cities and hence completely misses many better cities when compared to city L. The sample used in the survey should also be questioned to find the genuineness of the results.
Furthermore the conclusion that people relocating to the same state would be benefitted assumes that all the places in that state would have better living conditions. It would be incorrect to deduce that a city is goo dbecause the adjacent city is good. Also no data has been provided on the accesibility of city L from other cities of the state which could have supported the conclusion that city L is sufficient to cater needs of the residents of neighbour cities.
To sum everything, In order to conclude that people shifting to same state as city L will have advantage we need to dig in further details as explained above. Author should state specific crucial details, which are relevant to the scenario, to consolidate the conclusion.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Plz rate my essay - 1
This topic has expert replies
Poor command of the English language.
Misinterpreted the conclusion of the argument.
Short and unconvincing - not enough arguments/examples.
Did you really use the word "happening" as an adjective in an official test?
I'd give it a 2.5.
Misinterpreted the conclusion of the argument.
Short and unconvincing - not enough arguments/examples.
Did you really use the word "happening" as an adjective in an official test?
I'd give it a 2.5.
