Candidate: Our city's students have suffered long enough. Over the may

Candidate: Our city's students have suffered long enough. Over the mayor's four years in office, our district's math and science scores have hovered well below the national average, even while our average teacher's salary has increased. Our student-per-class ratio is laughable, yet he has made no progress on building a new school. He simply cannot be trusted with our children's future; if you care about education, I am the only candidate you can support.

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
*****************************************************************************************************************************
The aforementioned argument made by the candidate that the student have suffered under the incumbent mayor at a first glance, appears to be fairly convincing. However, on a closer look of the argument and it's structure, a number of flaws become evident. Among the most pivotal shortcomings of the arguments are the inability to address it's assumptions and the lack of information to substantiate it's claims.

Firstly, the argument mentions that the district's math and science scores have hovered well below the national average. This statement does not mention how the grades were before the mayor's term. It is possible that the scores were even lower before and due to the incumbent mayor's efforts, have increased instead. The statement also suffers from selection bias where it only considers scores in two subjects. It is also possible that the students performed exceptionally well in Arts and History during the mayor's term. Thus, the fact that students have suffered cannot be concluded.

Second, the arguments mentions that the average teacher's salary has increased. The argument mentions nothing about the total amount spent on teachers salary and also nothing about the total budget. It is possible that external factors, such as inflation was the cause of the increase. It is also possible that the total GDP and the budget of the increased, which lead to the increase in the average. The candidate also mentions the student-per-teacher ratio to be laughable, but dos not mention if it was even higher earlier, in which case, the ratio has actually improved. We also do not know if student-per-teacher ratio is an important factor on which the quality of education depends. If this isn't the case, and students are in fact receiving quality education, then there is also a decreased need for a new school.

Additionally, the candidate also mentions that the incumbent mayor cannot be trusted with the children's future; if the people care about education, he is the only candidate that should be supported. This reasoning is vulnerable to a number of flaws. We do not know if the candidate and the mayor are the only one contesting for the elections. There may be other candidates as well, and we have no information to judge if the candidate is the best among all that deserves support. The candidate also as mentioned nothing about how the candidate is better than the current mayor, and how electing him would improve the current state of the city's education. The candidate only attacks the mayor and does not try to garner support using self merits.

Thus, the argument in it's current state is flawed in abundant ways, the most blatant of which are discussed above. The candidate must address these in order to reinforce it's persuasive ability and the legitimacy of it's claims. However, in the current state, the statements by the candidate can be considered to be no more than a biased opinion relying on incomplete assumptions and unsubstantiated opinions.

*****************************************************************************************************************************