"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."

In this statement, the author concludes that the good performances of City L in an annual survey according to the quality of life two years ago drive people who are moving to the state of City L to identify one places. To support this conclusion, the author cites the following facts: (1) City L was listed 14th in an annual survey according to the quality of life two years ago; and (2) City L is representative of the state in which City L is located. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion that the information about City L in an annual survey drive people who are moving to the state of City L to identify one places.

First, the author provides no detailed information about the survey. We are not informed about who, when, where, and how the survey was conducted. Perhaps this survey was conducted by the government of City L: if this is the case, the credit of this survey is unreliable.

Second, even if we are informed the details about the survey, the author unnecessarily assumes that the quality of City L, or the rank of City L in the survey that might be conducted this year, has not changed since two years ago. However, this assumption is unwarranted. Perhaps because the economic depression over the last two years, the quality of City L has declined. In this sense, this evidence cited by the author cannot convince me the reliability of the conclusion.

Finally, even if we grant that the quality of City L has not changed over the last two years, we still cannot draw the conclusion that the good performances of City L in an annual survey according to the quality of life two years ago drive people who are moving to the state of City L to identify one places. This argument relies on the assumption that City L is representative of the state in which City L is located. Yet, absent such evidence, this assumption is far to support the conclusion. Perhaps City L is just a exceptional example of the state in which City L is located; for that matter, drawing conclusion from this single example is entirely problematic.

In sum, the conclusion relies on certain questionable assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion, the author should provide more details about the survey conducted two years ago, and information about the state quot of City L, and evidence that demonstrates the representativeness of City L to the state in which City L is located.



Thanks!