The following appeared in a letter to the editor of Parson City's local newspaper."In our region of Trillura, the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend—the city-run public schools—comes from taxes that each city government c

The originator of the letter asserts that Parson City residents place more value on giving children decent education than dwellers of Blue City. This claim is buttressed by an example and an evidence which should be carefully scrutinized in order to give a comprehensive estimation of the soundness of the argument.

The first evidence which is given to us is that Trillura cities is free in their distribution of money on education. To illustrate the idea, we are given example with two cities. Parson City has allocated twice as much as Blue City in recent years. Perhaps the situation was disparately opposite several years ago when Blue City heavily invested at education system on, for instance, buying new school equipment and facilities. Today the same expenditures are undertaken by Parson City. The argument might have been sronger had the author given us statistical data for bigger time span such as twenty years. Till we are not told this information, we cannot accept that the given data illustrate a hardened pattern and thus the amount of money spent by both towns in ten year span will be relatively close in absolute terms.

The second evidence claims that two areas have the same number of residents. However, does it mean that two areas have the same number of students? Perhaps Blue City has a small number of youngsters and the major part of the town is senior citizens. The neighboring town - Parson City may have a plethora of young residents. If we were told how much cities' government spends per student, we would overcome this barrier. However, we have to base our analysis on the given data thus, the argument weaken by this data.

Finally, the writer concludes that residents of Pason City place more value on their children's education. Do the local people distribute money? The answer is 'no'. In fact, allocation of finance is government's job and therefore, the money distribution should not be extrapolated on residents' attitude to education. Moreover, the amount of money cannot be used as a tools for measuring people's attitude. Perhaps Blue's government wishes to spent more on public education but it has other necessities such us sport facilities for children and other social program.

In conclusion, the author of the argument avers that due to the fact that Parson City's government allocated more money on public education, Parson's people place a higher value on a good education. However, the dynamic of expenditures was not given to us and how many governments spends per students is not known. Thus, the argument is not warranted.