Two years ago, City L was listed 14th... Post and Rate

[gsbawa]

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."

 

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.

[gsbawa]

The aforementioned article states that a two year old survey had ranked the City L 14th. This information, according the aricle, can help people relocating to the City L's state, to identify City L as an ideal place to stay based on school quality, housing value, people's friendly nature, safe environment and art loving. This argument sounds valid at a first glance, but when the article and its underlying structure are reviewed, a number of flaws are exposed. Not only does the article fails to validate the claims it make, but also it is based on very weak and illogical assumptions.

 

To identify a few flaws, the article fails to inform readers about the total number of participating cities in the survey; the reasons and figures attached to its ranking; probability of newer surveys outdating a two-year old survey; and validity of linking various attributes of quality living to the city's ranking.

 

First of all, the article does not mention if the City L stood 14th out of 15 cities or 100 cities. It also fails to mention the reason for this ranking. There are no facts and figues to validate these claims. Also, it is unclear if the survey has any reputation. The conclusion reached by the article could have been strengthened if these aspects were considered.

 

Secondly, the opening line in the argument states that the survey was conducted two-years ago. It is possible that a lot of information might have been invalidated in this time frame. Had the survey been conducted recently, it would have been more convincing.

 

Thirdly, the various aspects quality life in a city can be different for different people. The article's conclusion lists out a few points and feature. There is no information that how these might be related to an average reader. The article also fails to relate these attributes to the survey.

 

The above discussed obvious flaws in the argument, justify that the article is just a generalisation based on a information that is neither well-reasearched nor up-to-date. If the argument would have properly validated its claims regading the prosperity of City L by sold evidence, including valid facts and figures, then the article might have been more convincing.

 

Consequently, it can be said that the arguments about City L strain the structure of the article and are too weak to be believed by a reader.