-
Xulei
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:39 pm
- Location: Madrid (Spain)
The following appeared in the editorial of a local newspaper:
‘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 close for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the employment rate 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 concludes that residents of the city of San Perdito would be better served by former mayor Varro that mayor Montoya given that with the latter population decreased and unemployment rate increased. Although it seems to have sense, the argument has several flaws that clearly weaken it.
Firstly, the author of the text works out a conclusion based only in two points, population and unemployment rate. However, there are many other factors to evaluate the job of a politician. Therefore, here is a serious flaw in the argument because there is not enough information to make a clear evaluation. Maybe Varro was no reelected because of corruption or other politic scandals.
Secondly, there is missed a reference for the comparison between Montoya and Varro population and unemployment rates. It is possible that before Varro won the elections the unemployment rate was very high and the population very low, so it was easier to improve these statistics. And Montoya could have a very high level of population and a very low unemployment rate, which is more difficult to improve. Additionally, it is unknown the percentage of population and jobs decrease during Montoya’s service and the percentage of population and jobs increase during Varro’s. Thus, here is more information missed.
Thirdly, lost of population and jobs could be explained by a worldwide financial crisis like the one we are living nowadays. Therefore, this point can’t be supported without information about the causes of it. Moreover, the fact that two businesses were closed for every one new business is opened can be explained by the fact that there is less population to open new businesses.
Overall, the argument is not strong enough to support the final conclusion because there is not enough information. And the author makes several assumptions with the information missed. Further research about the information would be necessary to better evaluate the conclusion.
‘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 close for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the employment rate 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 concludes that residents of the city of San Perdito would be better served by former mayor Varro that mayor Montoya given that with the latter population decreased and unemployment rate increased. Although it seems to have sense, the argument has several flaws that clearly weaken it.
Firstly, the author of the text works out a conclusion based only in two points, population and unemployment rate. However, there are many other factors to evaluate the job of a politician. Therefore, here is a serious flaw in the argument because there is not enough information to make a clear evaluation. Maybe Varro was no reelected because of corruption or other politic scandals.
Secondly, there is missed a reference for the comparison between Montoya and Varro population and unemployment rates. It is possible that before Varro won the elections the unemployment rate was very high and the population very low, so it was easier to improve these statistics. And Montoya could have a very high level of population and a very low unemployment rate, which is more difficult to improve. Additionally, it is unknown the percentage of population and jobs decrease during Montoya’s service and the percentage of population and jobs increase during Varro’s. Thus, here is more information missed.
Thirdly, lost of population and jobs could be explained by a worldwide financial crisis like the one we are living nowadays. Therefore, this point can’t be supported without information about the causes of it. Moreover, the fact that two businesses were closed for every one new business is opened can be explained by the fact that there is less population to open new businesses.
Overall, the argument is not strong enough to support the final conclusion because there is not enough information. And the author makes several assumptions with the information missed. Further research about the information would be necessary to better evaluate the conclusion.
