The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper. “In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed f

The argument claims that in the city of San Perdito, when Montoya was the mayor in the first four years, the population had decreased and the rate of unemployment had increased. The further states that one new business was opened at the closure of 2 businesses. However, the also tells that before Montoya, there was another mayor Varro, who also served the city of San Perdito for four years. And under his mayor ship the city’s population had increased and the unemployment rate had decreased. Therefore, the author concludes that the residents of the city would be served best if they reelected Varro and vote out Montoya. Here, the author manipulates the facts and presents the argument in a distorted way. The conclusion of the argument depends upon unconvincing facts and hence it weak and consumes several flaws.

Firstly, the author states that San Perdito would be served best if they reelected Varro as their mayor. This statement is based in the assumptions that when Varro was the mayor of the city, the unemployment rate had decreased and the population increased. Population increase is not a good factor in the present economy and hence it is invalid evidence stated by the author if he assumes that population increase is a good point for the city.
Furthermore, if the unemployment rate had decreased, which is a good factor for the city, cannot be the treated or assumed as the best one for the city for many reasons. One among them is that, may be the mayor has allotted jobs for people which are inferior to their qualifications, only to decrease the rate of unemployment, which is not right for the residents. It is also possible that Varro has given employment to the individuals without regarding their performance only to increase the rate of unemployment. If the author had mentioned well-defined examples like how the unemployment rate decreased or why has the population increased, then the author would have proved to be right.

Secondly, the argument claims that when Montoya served the city as a mayor the unemployment rate had increased and the population had decreased. This situation seems to be not correct for the author and as a result he has stated that the residents of the city should vote out Montoya and reelect Varro. The rate of unemployment increasing and the population decreasing is not actually wrong as in today’s world the most important issue that is to be solves is the population control. And under Montoya, this issue is helping not only the city but also the whole world, which is a good factor. In addition, the author states that two businesses had closed for a new business to open. This is actually not an incorrect measure for the city, as the new single business opened might be a combination of the two businesses opened, which could be also known as a two-in-one measure, which is an effective measure for trade.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the above mentioned reasons. It could have been considerably strengthened if the author had included more information regarding the evidences of the city. But unfortunately, that has not been done, due to which the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate. Additionally, the argument fails to mention several key factors which resulted the argument to be weak and unconvincing,