Argument
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.
The author of the above article of a Lifestyle magazine tries to convince that City L, which is ranked as 14th in an annual survey is necessarily a place that offers good quality of life, better housing, healthy surroundings, and art supportive city. He further tries to assure that people willing to move to City L can consider these facts before switching homes. However, on scrutiny the argument falls apart on many fronts.Firstly, the survey had been conducted two years ago. We cannot assume that the political stability, economic conditions, housing facilities would be the same as they were two years ago. Two years is a long time to hold the validity of the survey. The author should have mentioned City L's overall conditions that determine quality of life while the survey was actually conducted. Further, we cannot ascertain City L as one of the perfect fit to live, because there are other parameters like police and security system, transportation and business industry that also add to better living conditions and are important from the point of evaluation. Secondly, we do not have any data on how many cities were competing to win the Best City title. If there were 2000 cities in the survey, City L was a clear winner as it comes into the top one percent, however, if there were only 15 cities, it was a little difficult choice. For instance, Chandigarh is accredited as the most well planned city in India. Nevertheless, we cannot vouch for all the other cities in Delhi. Thirdly, it is a faulty assumption that if City L is encouraging arts, it will particularly encourage good education, will have healthy environment and better housing facilities. Probably, every need of life might be affordable there, but it would be futile to shift if the people are not very amicable.
The author should have presented some more data on the parameters that determine better quality of life. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide with some clear criterion that he studied. To conclude, I believe that people who are planning to move to City L should not completely rely on the article mentioned in the magazine, as there is no clear picture about City L.
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.
The author of the above article of a Lifestyle magazine tries to convince that City L, which is ranked as 14th in an annual survey is necessarily a place that offers good quality of life, better housing, healthy surroundings, and art supportive city. He further tries to assure that people willing to move to City L can consider these facts before switching homes. However, on scrutiny the argument falls apart on many fronts.Firstly, the survey had been conducted two years ago. We cannot assume that the political stability, economic conditions, housing facilities would be the same as they were two years ago. Two years is a long time to hold the validity of the survey. The author should have mentioned City L's overall conditions that determine quality of life while the survey was actually conducted. Further, we cannot ascertain City L as one of the perfect fit to live, because there are other parameters like police and security system, transportation and business industry that also add to better living conditions and are important from the point of evaluation. Secondly, we do not have any data on how many cities were competing to win the Best City title. If there were 2000 cities in the survey, City L was a clear winner as it comes into the top one percent, however, if there were only 15 cities, it was a little difficult choice. For instance, Chandigarh is accredited as the most well planned city in India. Nevertheless, we cannot vouch for all the other cities in Delhi. Thirdly, it is a faulty assumption that if City L is encouraging arts, it will particularly encourage good education, will have healthy environment and better housing facilities. Probably, every need of life might be affordable there, but it would be futile to shift if the people are not very amicable.
The author should have presented some more data on the parameters that determine better quality of life. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide with some clear criterion that he studied. To conclude, I believe that people who are planning to move to City L should not completely rely on the article mentioned in the magazine, as there is no clear picture about City L.
