please comment

[ruchia]

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a citizen of the state of Impecunia.
"Two years ago our neighboring state, Lucria, began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health. Today, Lucria spends more per pupil than we do, and Lucria's public health program treats far more people than our state's program does. If we were to establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, the profits could be used to improve our educational system and public health program. The new lottery would doubtless be successful, because a survey conducted in our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling."

The author’s conclusion that starting a state lottery would supplement tax revenues for education and public health is based on weak evidence and objectionable assumptions. The author of the letter compares it to a neighboring state and assumes that since people spend money on gambling, they would also be interested in buying lottery tickets.

Firstly, the author states that Lucria spends more per pupil and its public health program treats more people than Impecunia’s health program. Based on this evidence, author concludes that if Impecunia also establishes a state lottery like the one in Lucria, the profits could be used to improve state’s educational system and public health program. However, the author does not provide any evidence of the number of people residing in the two states. It might be possible that the number of people residing in Lucria is far less than Impecunia and hence, Lucria is able to spend more money on its people.

Secondly, the author should throw some light on the professions of the people of the two states. It might be the case that all people in Lucria are retired that the state is not able to generate enough tax revenue and that people are wealthy enough to spend in lotteries. On the other hand, people in Impecunia may be working in small professions and hence may not be willing to spend money in lottery. So in order to strengthen the argument, the author should provide some facts about the number of residents and their wealth status in the two states.

Moreover, the author states that since the people in the capital city of Impecunia spend money on gambling, they might be interested in buying lottery tickets. The two things are very different. It might be the case that people spend money in gambling because it gives them fun which may not be the case with the lottery. Also the information provided is for the capital cityof Impecunia. It might not be true for the suburbs or the other parts of the city. It could be possible that the city has a lot of Casinos that people like to go there to socialize with friends. To strengthen this argument the author should conduct survey of the state people on their opinion on introducing a state lottery and hence make a conclusion.

Hence, the author’s conclusion could be strengthened if the author provides some evidence on the number of people in the two states and their professions. Also the author can strengthen the argument by conducting a survey around the state to gather opinion of people on introduction of a state lottery.

[Jeanette]

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a citizen of the state of Impecunia.

"Two years ago our neighboring state, Lucria, began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health. Today, Lucria spends more per pupil than we do, and Lucria's public health program treats far more people than our state's program does. If we were to establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, the profits could be used to improve our educational system and public health program. The new lottery would doubtless be successful, because a survey conducted in our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling."

The author’s conclusion that starting a state lottery would supplement tax revenues for education and public health is based on weak evidence and objectionable assumptions. The author of the letter compares it to a neighboring state and assumes that since people spend money on gambling, they would also be interested in buying lottery tickets.

Firstly, the author states that Lucria spends more per pupil and its public health program treats more people than Impecunia’s health program. Based on this evidence, author concludes that if Impecunia also establishes a state lottery like the one in Lucria, the profits could be used to improve state’s educational system and public health program. However, the author does not provide any evidence of the number of people residing in the two states. It might be possible that the number of people residing in Lucria is far less than Impecunia and hence, Lucria is able to spend more money on its people.

Secondly, the author should throw some light on the professions of the people of the two states. It might be the case that all people in Lucria are retired that the state is not able to generate enough tax revenue and that people are wealthy enough to spend in lotteries. On the other hand, people in Impecunia may be working in small professions and hence may not be willing to spend money in lottery. So in order to strengthen the argument, the author should provide some facts about the number of residents and their wealth status in the two states.

This paragraph is mighty confusing. Maybe you should add, the state is not able to generate enough tax revenue in income tax. Also, what are "small professions"? Small businesses? Or low-paying professions? Why would working in a "small profession" keep someone from spending money on lotteries? Actually I think studies show that most lottery tickets are bought by people in lower Socioeconomic groups.

Moreover, the author states that since the people in the capital city of Impecunia spend money on gambling, they might be interested in buying lottery tickets. The two things are very different. It might be the case that people spend money in gambling because it gives them fun which may not be the case with the lottery. Also the information provided is for the capital cityof Impecunia. It might not be true for the suburbs or the other parts of the city. It could be possible that the city has a lot of Casinos that people like to go there to socialize with friends. To strengthen this argument the author should conduct survey of the state people on their opinion on introducing a state lottery and hence make a conclusion.

Good paragraph!

Hence, the author’s conclusion could be strengthened if the author provides some evidence on the number of people in the two states and their professions. Also the author can strengthen the argument by conducting a survey around the state to gather opinion{s} (or "the opinions) of people on the introduction of a state lottery.

[ruchia]

Thanks!