Joined: 08 Nov 2013
, given: 0
Interesting Argument AWA essay - would anyone grade? [#permalink]
08 Nov 2013, 11:50
There is now evidence that the relaxed pace of life in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities. Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual workers than do businesses in the nearby large city of Masonton. Furthermore, Leeville has only one physician for its one thousand residents, but in Masonton the proportion of physicians to residents is five times as high. Finally, the average age of Leeville residents is significantly higher than that of Masonton residents. These findings suggest that people seeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
An argument like that one above is problematic for a number of reasons, which include the facts and hypotheticals that are not known, but rather assumed to come up with a conclusion. The premises in this argument are not strong, making this argument and the conclusion within it, invalid – it assumes way too much information to be known and true. I will explain why this argument is fallacious, meaning weak and untrue, for the following reasons: the problem of ‘place’ and economic backgrounds of each place’s citizens, as well as the problem of quantity of residents and educational resources.
First of all, this argument does not acknowledge the diversity of economic backgrounds that are contained within each of these cities. For example, if the citizens of Leeville have the unfortunate debilitation of having less money, they cannot afford to take any time off of work – therefore, this could be a reason there are less reported days of sick leave taken. On the other hand, perhaps the citizens of Masonton are majoritively very well-off, with no worry of taking time off for sick leave; even the simple phone call in sick is not a bother to them – they have enough money to pay rent this month, a few days calling in sick will not hurt them. With that said, it is clear that economic backgrounds could be a contributor to the number of sick days one takes off instead of making money and going to work. A slight cold and stuffy nose, or perhaps a hangover from the night before, may purport a resident of Masonton to take a sick leave, while a Leeville resident in the same situation, knowing they must make money to pay rent this month, bears the cold and hangover with the little energy they have to attend work and make the money they need to keep on living their lives. The notion of paid sick leave changes these conclusions a bit, however this aforementioned sick leave was not qualified as such. If however it were, then I would be able to make more specific conclusions about the sick leaves of both cities, perhaps then understanding that an actual sick resident in Leeville does not have to worry about money because they know that sick leave is a paid opportunity granted to them by their employer. After the fact I could then further understand that there are less sick days taken in Leeville not because people are worried about losing money, but they are happily salubrious and attending work.
Secondly, this argument does not acknowledge the number of residents in each city when stating the number of physicians in Leeville is less than Masonton. Perhaps there are very few people in Leeville that are able to attend medical school, while in Masonton many people are able to attend medical school because they can afford to do so and the faciliies are available. It is already mentioned that Leeville is a small town, so perhaps there is not a lot of room for these types of medical schools that allow you to become a physician. Meanwhile in Masonton, plenty of schools are available at anyone’s convenience who is interested in this type of field because there are more resources available to these residents at getting a medical education and degree. Furthermore, perhaps in Leeville, the resources are not up to date, so people going to work and paying the bills who may be interested in pursuing a higher degree in the medical field, are not able to because they have to work full time. On the other hand looking at Masonton, perhaps their cities’ resources are more up-to-date and modern, so even people that are working full time can attend medical school because they can do so online – after work, at their convenience! This argument could have less holes if it stated that perhaps the reason there are less physicians in Leeville is because there is a much lower demand for these positions to be filled. At that point it may be possible to assume that the reason there is a lower demand is because there is not a need amongst the town for an abundant amount of physicians, but rather singers and actors, for example. It would then need to explain that these other positions are in a higher demand for a certain reason pertaining to the town’s needs.
More details and specificities are needed to fulfill the accuracy of this argument, as can be see by my explanation of the assumptions the above argument entails: assuming that the economic backgrounds of each place are the same as well as the resources contained in each. The more details and less holes in the argument would make it stronger and more likely to avoid the ultimate stamp of a failed argument: fallacious.