Please provide feedback, greatly appreciated!

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.
---------

The candidate states that the current mayor in office is not a good fit, particularly due to his/her inability to better children's education. Or so the candidate states. The argument he presents is flawed because he appeals to the emotion of the people by stating false assumptions and unsubstantiated claims which provide no evidence. Therefore, his argument cannot be trusted.

The primary issue is the false assumption he makes stating that the "city's students have suffered long enough." This lacks any substance because the candidate fails to provide any details with regards to how the students actually feel. He doesn't take into consideration the holistic view of the education system, rather only focuses on the two subjects. Moreover, he states that the mayor cannot be trusted however provides no reasoning in his argument as to why. For all we know, the mayor could be doing a great job in office, not just focusing on one small area, such as increasing math and science scores of the schools. Additionally, there are many different responsibilities that the mayor has to address, so touching on this small point to try and invoke emotion that the mayor is not trustful, is without merit.

The secondary issue lies in the unsupported facts that are presented. Stating that the district's math and science scores are well below the national average gives us no understanding if that is good or bad. For example, if the national average for those two subjects was 100 percent, then even if it was below that, that seems to be a good average to have. Also, we don't know how many schools consist of the district, therefore we cannot assume that because the average is low, the entire education system is in jeopardy. For instance, if there were 100 schools in the district, 70 of them well above the average in math and science, 20 at the average, and 10 far below the average, then one could assume the entire district is below the national average, but as you can see, a large majority of the schools are either excelling in those subjects or right around the average. Without knowing the full basis of the schools and how they rank, the evidence is deemed unworthy of trust.

The candidate could have substantially increased their likelihood of winning support by providing strong evidence of his claims. If he conducted qualitative surveys that asked students what their thoughts of the current mayor was, with respect to the education system, then provided their feedback, it could have made his position stronger. Also, providing the ratio figures of the student-per-class ratio would have better supported his claim that it is "laughable". Moreover, stating why the mayor cannot be trusted, with facts and details behind that claim, would be better.

The candidate's false claims and unsupported statements are not substantial enough to be trusted. If he were to provide further details as to the points listed above, then his claims may hold more weight and have a better impact.