TestMagic Forums - View Single Post - City L was listed 14th in an annual survey

charu_mulye · 12-02-2006, 11:52 AM

Please find my comments inline.
Rating: 4.0 – 4.5

The above argument, which is taken from a lifestyle magazine, regarding moving to a city in a state, whose one of the city was recognized number 14 in annual survey, is very interesting. The argument looks complete and logical on the first look; however, a closer look of argument reveals many hidden assumptions that weaken the argument to such an extent that its conclusion falls apart.

>> Please restructure the opening sentence of the introduction. You could have written: The aforementioned argument taken from a lifestyle magazine concludes that: “one can move to city L, based on its 14th rank in the survey cited” .The sentence packed with lot of modifiers looks overly complex.

The argument is not well supported. There are many hidden assumption that are made by the author to draw the conclusion. First, the validity of the survey data is in question. The survey was conducted two years ago and author assumes that data still representative. Moreover, rank 14th could mean anything and it mainly depends on how many cities are surveyed. On one hand, City L could be in top 10% of the cities if more than 140 cities were included in survey and on the other hand City L may be the last one to be ranked if only 14 cities were surveyed. Author should have provided some details on the survey details to validate the data and that would have supported the conclusion.

>> Opening sentence of this para is redundant. You have already written the same statement as last lines of introductory para.
>>Validity and rank interpretation are two logically different points and should come in separate paras.
>> Author also does not define geographical scope of the survey, i.e. 14th rank in state, country, continent or world?? Please include this point of view along with number of cities included in the survey.

Second, City L is considered to represent the conditions of all the cities of the state in which City L is located. This assumption is flawed because not all cities in the certain state would be developed to same level.(I) In addition, if city L is capital of the state and hence possibly its equipped with facilities that enhance the quality of life but this may not be the case for other cities in the same state. For example, Lucknow, capital of UP, India, is well developed where as the other cities in the same state are not. Hence the assumption that City L can represent the condition of other cities is flawed.

>> I did not like the way you have put forth this assumption. (I)They are not developed to the same level??
>>Naturally, that is why we are ranking the cities in first place.
>>You could have rather worded it differently to avoid all the confusion and questions that the statement is raising. Write this point as
“Author unwarrantedly assumes that the parameters taken in to consideration for ranking the city L are applicable to all the cities in the scope of survey.”

Third, author has not explained the difference between Quality of Life vs. Lifestyle. The Quality of life may be with respect to basic amenities required but lifestyle is not driven by these. Good schools, affordable housing, friendly people can make quality of life good but need not improve one's life style. Moreover, if a city L is modern city that has good amenities but may have higher cost of living, higher level of pollution and safety might be issue as well. Hence, it is not easy to conclude that a city equipped with certain amenities can fulfill all the requirements.

>> If you re-read the argument again, it is not difference between quality of life and life style (Author has never used a word life style in his argument)
Rank is based on quality of life but author concludes about schools are good, housing is affordable, people are friendly, the environment is safe, and the arts flourish. Basic flaw here is that author does not define term “quality of life”. If quality of life only means better housing and environment. How can author conclude about friendliness of people, and whether arts flourish?

Overall, the argument is weakened because the some of the main assumptions listed above and also author did not provided enough support to the conclusion. Author should have thought more in detail regarding the survey data and using City L to represent any city in the state along with description on requirements for good Quality of life. Therefore, people who wish to move to one of the cities in the state where City L is located should not rely completely on the magazine article and should do more homework to find out what are the developments and changes over the 2 years time and then make a selection.

>> We are here to critique the author’s line of reasoning. Your conclusion will be that argument is weakly reasoned and what should be done to make it adequately reasoned. (No need to write what people should do!!!) You are concluding the argument essay with what people should do.

12-02-2006, 11:52 AM	#2 (permalink)
charu_mulye TestMagic Guru-in-Training Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Mumbai, India Posts: 830	Please find my comments inline. Rating: 4.0 – 4.5 The above argument, which is taken from a lifestyle magazine, regarding moving to a city in a state, whose one of the city was recognized number 14 in annual survey, is very interesting. The argument looks complete and logical on the first look; however, a closer look of argument reveals many hidden assumptions that weaken the argument to such an extent that its conclusion falls apart. >> Please restructure the opening sentence of the introduction. You could have written: The aforementioned argument taken from a lifestyle magazine concludes that: “one can move to city L, based on its 14th rank in the survey cited” .The sentence packed with lot of modifiers looks overly complex. The argument is not well supported. There are many hidden assumption that are made by the author to draw the conclusion. First, the validity of the survey data is in question. The survey was conducted two years ago and author assumes that data still representative. Moreover, rank 14th could mean anything and it mainly depends on how many cities are surveyed. On one hand, City L could be in top 10% of the cities if more than 140 cities were included in survey and on the other hand City L may be the last one to be ranked if only 14 cities were surveyed. Author should have provided some details on the survey details to validate the data and that would have supported the conclusion. >> Opening sentence of this para is redundant. You have already written the same statement as last lines of introductory para. >>Validity and rank interpretation are two logically different points and should come in separate paras. >> Author also does not define geographical scope of the survey, i.e. 14th rank in state, country, continent or world?? Please include this point of view along with number of cities included in the survey. Second, City L is considered to represent the conditions of all the cities of the state in which City L is located. This assumption is flawed because not all cities in the certain state would be developed to same level.(I) In addition, if city L is capital of the state and hence possibly its equipped with facilities that enhance the quality of life but this may not be the case for other cities in the same state. For example, Lucknow, capital of UP, India, is well developed where as the other cities in the same state are not. Hence the assumption that City L can represent the condition of other cities is flawed. >> I did not like the way you have put forth this assumption. (I)They are not developed to the same level?? >>Naturally, that is why we are ranking the cities in first place. >>You could have rather worded it differently to avoid all the confusion and questions that the statement is raising. Write this point as “Author unwarrantedly assumes that the parameters taken in to consideration for ranking the city L are applicable to all the cities in the scope of survey.” Third, author has not explained the difference between Quality of Life vs. Lifestyle. The Quality of life may be with respect to basic amenities required but lifestyle is not driven by these. Good schools, affordable housing, friendly people can make quality of life good but need not improve one's life style. Moreover, if a city L is modern city that has good amenities but may have higher cost of living, higher level of pollution and safety might be issue as well. Hence, it is not easy to conclude that a city equipped with certain amenities can fulfill all the requirements. >> If you re-read the argument again, it is not difference between quality of life and life style (Author has never used a word life style in his argument) Rank is based on quality of life but author concludes about schools are good, housing is affordable, people are friendly, the environment is safe, and the arts flourish. Basic flaw here is that author does not define term “quality of life”. If quality of life only means better housing and environment. How can author conclude about friendliness of people, and whether arts flourish? Overall, the argument is weakened because the some of the main assumptions listed above and also author did not provided enough support to the conclusion. Author should have thought more in detail regarding the survey data and using City L to represent any city in the state along with description on requirements for good Quality of life. Therefore, people who wish to move to one of the cities in the state where City L is located should not rely completely on the magazine article and should do more homework to find out what are the developments and changes over the 2 years time and then make a selection. >> We are here to critique the author’s line of reasoning. Your conclusion will be that argument is weakly reasoned and what should be done to make it adequately reasoned. (No need to write what people should do!!!) You are concluding the argument essay with what people should do. _ _ _ _ SIG _ _ _ _ Arise, Awake! And stop not until the goal is reached. -- Swami Vivekananda.