Please rate my argument - I got a 5.5 last time, but I'm not sure on this...

[gdaym8]

I was pretty satisfied with my score from 2 months ago, but I have been too busy to practice since then and feel that this essay is not as powerful. I would appreciate your honest comments! Thanks in advance.

The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"During her three years in office, Governor Riedeburg has shown herself to be a worthy leader. Since she took office, crime has decreased, the number of jobs created per year has doubled, and the number of people choosing to live in our state has increased. These trends are likely to continue if she is reelected. In addition, Ms. Riedeburg has promised to take steps to keep big companies here, thereby providing jobs for any new residents. Anyone who looks at Ms. Riedeburg's record can tell that she is the best-qualified candidate for governor." Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.

The argument asserts that Governor Riedeburg should be re-elected because she is the best-qualified candidate. The author supports his decision by saying that crime has decreased, jobs have doubled, more people have chosen to live in the state and that Ms. Riedeburg plans to increase the number of jobs by keeping large companies in the state. However, the author uses flawed evidence and makes many assumptions that weaken his case.

Governor Riedeburg has only been in office for three years. Often, political policies are carefully considered and refined for many months prior to implemention. The author fails to mention what the governor has done specifically that would cause the crime to decrease or jobs to increase and when she did it. Had he taken the time to connect the two seemingly disjointed points using more specific facts and dates, his argument would have been much stronger.

The argument also clearly lacks the evidence and statistical data needed to support the main points. The author hastily attributes the general well-being of the state to the actions of the governor. In doing so, he overlooks the fact that other factors could have contributed to the statistics he included in his argument. For example, crime could have decreased due to an upturn in the economy or due to a new neighborhood watch program. Similarly, the increase in jobs could be due to the older generation retiring or due to the initiation of new projects that require many workers. Either way, the author fails to analyze the specifics behind these hasty generalizations and makes this superficial statement highly unconvincing.

The author also assumes that more people have chosen to live in his state due to the governor. Here, the author lacks the statistics needed to support his point. It could be possible that he misinterpreted an upsurge in population to be due to increasing popularity of the state when it was actually due to job relocation or people looking to change their surroundings. There are many underlying reasons for why people move that the author did not consider. His argument could have been more powerful had he included a recent poll that surveyed many residents on why they moved to the state.

The argument also rests on the assumption that the governor will continue to act as she had in the past. Often, past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior, but it is inappropriate to assume that her past record will determine her performance in the position in the future. Furthermore, the author mentions that Governor Riedeburg has promised to work towards keeping large companies local, which the author assumes would provide new jobs for new residents. This logic is flawed because companies will only hire the most qualified people, which may not necessarily be the new residents. Therefore, it is inappropriate to say that Governor Riedeburg will be helping the economy by providing jobs to new residents in the future.

Lastly, the author argues that Ms. Riedeburg is the best qualified candidate, but does not provide supporting examples of why he believes so, which leaves the reader to guess the quality of her opponents.

Ms. Riedeburg may be a great candidate for the position of governor, but this argument has many speculations that abate the quality of the argument. In light of the above considerations, the author leaves many gaps that open doors for counter attacks from opponents and fails to provide a hollistic picture to the superfluous claims being made.

Specific questions:
How is the quality of my argument points?
Is the organization good?
Overall, is the essay convincing?
What about the strength of words/word choice - what are some other good words that are similar in meaning to argue, weak, strengthen? I got stuck and couldn't think.