Could you kindly review my essay?
Prompt: In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro.
The argument presented is flawed and riddled with fallacies. As a whole, the prompt presented is underpinned by the unwarranted idea that Montoya and Varro can be directly compared and also lacks a clear idea of what "best served" means.
Firstly, it is flawed to compare the performance of the two mayor across different time periods. Montoya served four years prior to Varro, but may have had a different political and economic climate during her reign. It is likely that, for example, that many small businesses were closing down because a big, strong competitors were entering San Perdito due to Montoya's favorable tax benefits. This would explain why two businesses closed for every one business that opened. Overall, this could have been a good economic indicator if strong businesses were entering the city. By the time Varro took office, the new firms' hiring could have decreased unemployment and attracted new residents to San Perdito. Varro would not have had to enact any policies. In sum, without further information, it is difficult to compare the mayors without accounting for the effects of time. The argument would need to explicitly state the political and economic climate during each mayor's tenure to make a stronger claim.
Furthermore, the argument uses vague langauge on the measures of San Perdito's success. It is difficult to assess whether a population decrease and unemployent rate increase is less favourable than a population increase and an unemployment rate decrease. For example, a population increase and unemployment rate decrease could mean San Perdito is attracting more low-wage jobs because of a declining economy and faltering GDP. Similarly, a population decrase and unemployment increase could be good for San Perdito if the city's population is finding higher-skilled jobs outside of the city, and remitting the money back to San Perdito. Additionally, the prompt fails to define what "best served" means. Best served could mean high GDP per capita, or it could mean lowest unemployment rate. Based on the explanation above, there is no clear answer as to which mayor would best serve San Perdito. To strengthen the argument, the prompt would need to define how exactly San Perdito is best served, and clarify the reasonings behind the shifting metrics.
As such, without clear political-economic climate during each mayor's tenure, and a definitive understanding of what "best served" entails, this argument lacks weight. It would need to address these concerns before any conclusion could be drawn.
Prompt: In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro.
The argument presented is flawed and riddled with fallacies. As a whole, the prompt presented is underpinned by the unwarranted idea that Montoya and Varro can be directly compared and also lacks a clear idea of what "best served" means.
Firstly, it is flawed to compare the performance of the two mayor across different time periods. Montoya served four years prior to Varro, but may have had a different political and economic climate during her reign. It is likely that, for example, that many small businesses were closing down because a big, strong competitors were entering San Perdito due to Montoya's favorable tax benefits. This would explain why two businesses closed for every one business that opened. Overall, this could have been a good economic indicator if strong businesses were entering the city. By the time Varro took office, the new firms' hiring could have decreased unemployment and attracted new residents to San Perdito. Varro would not have had to enact any policies. In sum, without further information, it is difficult to compare the mayors without accounting for the effects of time. The argument would need to explicitly state the political and economic climate during each mayor's tenure to make a stronger claim.
Furthermore, the argument uses vague langauge on the measures of San Perdito's success. It is difficult to assess whether a population decrease and unemployent rate increase is less favourable than a population increase and an unemployment rate decrease. For example, a population increase and unemployment rate decrease could mean San Perdito is attracting more low-wage jobs because of a declining economy and faltering GDP. Similarly, a population decrase and unemployment increase could be good for San Perdito if the city's population is finding higher-skilled jobs outside of the city, and remitting the money back to San Perdito. Additionally, the prompt fails to define what "best served" means. Best served could mean high GDP per capita, or it could mean lowest unemployment rate. Based on the explanation above, there is no clear answer as to which mayor would best serve San Perdito. To strengthen the argument, the prompt would need to define how exactly San Perdito is best served, and clarify the reasonings behind the shifting metrics.
As such, without clear political-economic climate during each mayor's tenure, and a definitive understanding of what "best served" entails, this argument lacks weight. It would need to address these concerns before any conclusion could be drawn.
