Is it too short?
PS: I picked the subject randomly from one of the threads here and timed myself.
"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 argument concludes that City L has good schools, affordable housing, friendly people, safe environment and flourishing arts because City L ranked 14th in a survey about quality of life that was conducted two years ago. The argument is clearly flawed because it assumes that ranking 14th in the list means that it is a good city. Also, it makes another illogical assumption that City L did not get worse during the last two years. Morever, the argument doesn't provide the criteria that were used in the survey. We can't jump into conclusion that City L would have all those qualities without knowing more details about the survey.
First, the argument wrongly assumes that the city would have all those good qualities because the city ranked 14th in the survey. The ranking is not that useful if we don't know how many cities are there in the list. If there are 100 cities, for example, City L would be in the top 20%. However, if there are only 14 cities in the list, City L would be the worst.
Second, the argument makes the flawed assumption that the city is still good after two years from the survey. What are the results of the more current surveys? Is the city going up the ladder? City L might as well be going down the ladder in the last two years.
Moreover, the argument doesn't provide any details about the survey. Who conducted the survey? Could it be a biasd party? What criteria were used in the survey? We need such information to be able to logically evaluate the conclusion, and have better knowledge about the quality of life in City L.
In conclusion, the argument's conclusion that City L has high life quality is flawed. The argument doesn't provide any details about the survey to support this claim. It also makes the illogical assumption that the city didn't get worse during the last two years.
PS: I picked the subject randomly from one of the threads here and timed myself.
"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 argument concludes that City L has good schools, affordable housing, friendly people, safe environment and flourishing arts because City L ranked 14th in a survey about quality of life that was conducted two years ago. The argument is clearly flawed because it assumes that ranking 14th in the list means that it is a good city. Also, it makes another illogical assumption that City L did not get worse during the last two years. Morever, the argument doesn't provide the criteria that were used in the survey. We can't jump into conclusion that City L would have all those qualities without knowing more details about the survey.
First, the argument wrongly assumes that the city would have all those good qualities because the city ranked 14th in the survey. The ranking is not that useful if we don't know how many cities are there in the list. If there are 100 cities, for example, City L would be in the top 20%. However, if there are only 14 cities in the list, City L would be the worst.
Second, the argument makes the flawed assumption that the city is still good after two years from the survey. What are the results of the more current surveys? Is the city going up the ladder? City L might as well be going down the ladder in the last two years.
Moreover, the argument doesn't provide any details about the survey. Who conducted the survey? Could it be a biasd party? What criteria were used in the survey? We need such information to be able to logically evaluate the conclusion, and have better knowledge about the quality of life in City L.
In conclusion, the argument's conclusion that City L has high life quality is flawed. The argument doesn't provide any details about the survey to support this claim. It also makes the illogical assumption that the city didn't get worse during the last two years.
