The following appeared in the editorial section 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 closed for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The aforementioned argument, in asserting that the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of the office and reelected Varro, appears to be a coherent and a fairly convincing argument at first glance. However, upon further examination of the argument and its underlying structure, a number flaws can be noticed in author’s approach to address the issue. Among the most pivotal shortcomings are its inability to address its assumptions and lack of information to substantiate its claims.
To begin with, the author assumes that unemployment rate and population are the only two factors to judge a candidate’s ability to be a mayor and to serve the city at best. The author is wrong in this assumption as it fails to consider any other factor responsible for current scenario of the city. It might be that during Montoya’s tenure, population among employed class is decreasing and ultimately contributing to unemployment rate. For instance, population of some city is 100 with 80 employed people and 20 unemployed people. Because of some reason like bird flu etc, 20 employed people died and unemployed people remain same, this scenario will result in decreased population and increased unemployment rate. The author also fails to consider any other factors during the Montoya’s tenure as a mayor which might have contributed in city’s development There can be many other factors like inflation, parallel indicators of the economy, leading or lagging indicators of the economy of the city etc. And the author fails to consider any such factor and makes such a broad conclusion.
The author also assumes that less the number of business, less is the city served at best. This assumption is flawed. It might be that number of large-scale industries are entering the market and establishing in the city, contributing to the decreased unemployment rate in long term. As number of business will be low, business will be run effectively and government will also be able to control such a limited number of businesses in the city because of less conflicting demands of competitors. It might be that during the tenure of earlier mayor, government was unable to control the number of businesses and which might have resulted in less number of projects to each business. And hence low wages to workers. This clearly shows that city was not served at its best. The author fails to consider any such possibility.
The argument, in its current state, contains a number of flaws, the most blatant of which have been discussed above. Had the argument managed to address the aforementioned concerns, both its persuasive ability and its apparent legitimacy would have been greatly reinforced, perhaps to such an extent that it would be difficult to refute. However, as it stands, the argument is simply a hasty generalization, filled with overreaching assumptions and deficiencies in information.
Please rate this, i'll appreciate your response.....don't have much time left for GMAT