-
paddle_sweep
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 am
- Location: Chennai,India
- Thanked: 3 times
Dear Members,
I kindly request you to review my analysis of argument and please share your views and feedback. Appreciate your response.
Argument:
"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."
Essay:
The argument states that the residents of San Perdito would be best served by reelecting Varro instead of Montoya. However the argument does not provide a reasoning to indicate as to how the residents will be served better by Varro and not by Montoya. The argument also assumes that the increase in unemployment rate and the closure of businesses is related with Montoya. Again, here, the argument does not validate its assumptions and neither it provides concrete reasoning as to how Montoya is responsible for the closure of businesses and the increase in employment rate. There are a number of flaws in this argument and the reasoning does not stand good. I have shown below the various flaws present in this argument.
First, the argument assumes that increase in unemployment rate is to do with Montoya. However the argument does not say as to how Montoya is responsible for the increase in unemployment rate. It does not talk about Montoya's economic and education policies. There could be a number of other factors , such as recession at national level, which might have lead to an increase in the unemployment rate. Also, the argument does not say as to what is the percentage increase in the unemployment rate. We know that the population increased during Varro's tenure and decreased during Montoya's tenure. Assume that the population increase was 20% during Varros tenure and the population decreased by 5% during Montoya's tenure. Now, the unemployment rate could have increased just by 0.5%. Hence without any statistical data we cannot attribute an increase in unemployment rate to Montoya.
Secondly,the argument attributes the closure of business to Montoya. Again,here,the argument does not provide any reasoning at all to indicate as to how this is linked with Montoya. There could be a number of other factors,one such factor highlighted in the above paragraph,due to which business would have closed down. The argument does not talk about
Montoya's economic and industrial policies. Probably more business were closed down during Varro's tenure and no new business opened during his tenure. The argument does not take talk about this aspect. This argument of linking business closures with Montoya,without data to back it up, stands no good.
Thirdly, the argument states that the residents of San Perdito would be best served by Varro and not by Montoya. This conclusion stands no good as the argument does not state as to how the resident's interest would be best served by Varro. It does not talk about how Varro would bring about improvements,if any at all. It does not compare Varro's policies
with Montoya's policies. We know that during Varro's tenure the population increased and this might have lead to an increase in the unemployment rate. The statement that San Perdito would be better served by Varro is best ignored as no reasoning is provided to support this conlusion.
The argument would have better served if the author had backed up his statements with statistical data such as the percentage of employed people during the tenure's of Varro and Montoya. Also, the argument should have talked about the performance of the business during Varro's tenure and compared it with Montoya. The argument would also have been strengthened if it had provided reasoning as to how Varro is the right person to act as Mayor of San Perdito.
In sum, the argument stands no good as it does not back it's conclusion with the necessary reasoning and evidence. There is little evidence present in this argument to indicate that Varro is the right person for the Mayor job and not Montoya.
I kindly request you to review my analysis of argument and please share your views and feedback. Appreciate your response.
Argument:
"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."
Essay:
The argument states that the residents of San Perdito would be best served by reelecting Varro instead of Montoya. However the argument does not provide a reasoning to indicate as to how the residents will be served better by Varro and not by Montoya. The argument also assumes that the increase in unemployment rate and the closure of businesses is related with Montoya. Again, here, the argument does not validate its assumptions and neither it provides concrete reasoning as to how Montoya is responsible for the closure of businesses and the increase in employment rate. There are a number of flaws in this argument and the reasoning does not stand good. I have shown below the various flaws present in this argument.
First, the argument assumes that increase in unemployment rate is to do with Montoya. However the argument does not say as to how Montoya is responsible for the increase in unemployment rate. It does not talk about Montoya's economic and education policies. There could be a number of other factors , such as recession at national level, which might have lead to an increase in the unemployment rate. Also, the argument does not say as to what is the percentage increase in the unemployment rate. We know that the population increased during Varro's tenure and decreased during Montoya's tenure. Assume that the population increase was 20% during Varros tenure and the population decreased by 5% during Montoya's tenure. Now, the unemployment rate could have increased just by 0.5%. Hence without any statistical data we cannot attribute an increase in unemployment rate to Montoya.
Secondly,the argument attributes the closure of business to Montoya. Again,here,the argument does not provide any reasoning at all to indicate as to how this is linked with Montoya. There could be a number of other factors,one such factor highlighted in the above paragraph,due to which business would have closed down. The argument does not talk about
Montoya's economic and industrial policies. Probably more business were closed down during Varro's tenure and no new business opened during his tenure. The argument does not take talk about this aspect. This argument of linking business closures with Montoya,without data to back it up, stands no good.
Thirdly, the argument states that the residents of San Perdito would be best served by Varro and not by Montoya. This conclusion stands no good as the argument does not state as to how the resident's interest would be best served by Varro. It does not talk about how Varro would bring about improvements,if any at all. It does not compare Varro's policies
with Montoya's policies. We know that during Varro's tenure the population increased and this might have lead to an increase in the unemployment rate. The statement that San Perdito would be better served by Varro is best ignored as no reasoning is provided to support this conlusion.
The argument would have better served if the author had backed up his statements with statistical data such as the percentage of employed people during the tenure's of Varro and Montoya. Also, the argument should have talked about the performance of the business during Varro's tenure and compared it with Montoya. The argument would also have been strengthened if it had provided reasoning as to how Varro is the right person to act as Mayor of San Perdito.
In sum, the argument stands no good as it does not back it's conclusion with the necessary reasoning and evidence. There is little evidence present in this argument to indicate that Varro is the right person for the Mayor job and not Montoya.
