AWA essay
[#permalink]
27 Apr 2018, 05:28
The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine on lifestyles:
“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 above claims that the state where City L is located would be considered as a great place for living. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that two years ago City L was listed 14th in an annual survey regarding the quality of life. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that since City L was listed 14th in a survey, it means that in City L schools are good, housing is affordable, people are friendly, the environment is safe, and the arts flourish. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The argument would have been much clearer if it provided any information about the criteria by which the cities were compared. It is pretty possible that the primary criteria was the average income of inhabitants of the city and therefore if it was relatively high in City L. This may indicate that, for example, the price for housing is high. Hence, without introducing the standards of the survey this portion of the overall argument relies completely on assumption and not on fact.
Second, the argument heavily implies that state in which City L is located would be a desirable place for living. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument flaws to mention any information about the life of other cities in the state. The argument would have sounded a lot more convincing if the author presented any research about other cities in the state or a study which would indicate that all cities in the state do not differ from each other regarding their living standards.
Finally, the argument fails to mention one of the key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated, namely whether the study held two years ago is actual for making inferences today.
In summary, the argument fails to convince because of faulty assumptions aforementioned. If the argument had drawn upon examples as suggested, and thereby plugged in the holes in the reasoning, it would have been far sounder on the whole.