Workers in the small town of Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in the large city of Masonton, 50 miles away. Moreover, relative to population size, the diagnosis of stress-related illness is proportionally much lower in Leeville than in Masonton. According to Leeville Chamber of Commerce, these facts can be attributed to the health benefits of the relatively relaxed pace of life in Leeville.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The claim by the Leeville chamber of Commerce that “ less chances of stress related illness in town Leeville is attributed to health benefits of the relatively relaxed pace of life in Leevilee” on first reading seems to be true but on a closer scrutiny, it has various loopholes which render this argument inefficacious. The claim represents a comparison between levels of stress-related illness of a town Leeville and city Masonton and rests on weak assumptions which need to be corrected.
Firstly the argument states that workers in small town of Leeville take fewer sick leaves than workers in the large city Masonton and hence is attributing this factor to healthy relaxed pace of life in Leeville. It seems that the author is concluding this result in a haste as more sick leaves in Masonton may be because of conditions of the city like more pollution; more bacterial, fungal infections; respiratory diseases or more contagious diseases. It can’t be concluded that the pace of life in Leeville is more relaxed.
Furthermore, more sick leaves may be because of the types of jobs in Masontan. For instance, people in this city may be engaged in more laborious jobs like industrial jobs, manufacturing jobs, engineering jobs and on the other hand people in Leeville may be engaged in family businesses where they can get leaves easily. So the author must have mentioned the nature of work quality to substantiate his point.
Also, the author has extrapolated the results as lesser sick leaves of workers cannot lead to conclusion for the whole population. Generalisation of the evidence is making the argument more flimsy as it may be possible that the owners of the businesses in Leeville are taking more leaves than in Masonton.
In a nutshell it could be stated that the evidences provided in the above argument are insubstantial and hence non convincing. Had the author provided certain evidences like nature of job, conditions of city, other non-stress related illnesses, then the argument would have been more persuasive.
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of Butler Manufacturing During the past year workers at Butler Manufacturing reported 30 percent more on the job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries where the work shifts are one hou 55
- An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p 50
- This appeared in a memo to the board of Grandview Symphony-"For many years the city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony since the symphony's inception ten years ago. Last year, the symphony hired an internationally known co 50
- The following appeared as part of a business plan developed by the manager of the Rialto Movie Theater Despite its downtown location the Rialto Movie Theater a local institution for five decades must make big changes or close its doors forever It should f 75
- Anyone can make things bigger and more complex. What requires real effort and courage is to move in the opposite direction---in other words, to make things as simple as possible. 90
argument 1 -- not exactly
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
flaws:
If you see topics ask you 'Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations', then it means there are no flaws for the topic. You only need to give alternative explanations. It is different to traditional arguments.
Like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: explanation 1
para 3: explanation 2
para 4: explanation 3
para 5: conclusion
-------------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 335 350
No. of Characters: 1667 1500
No. of Different Words: 160 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.278 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.976 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.778 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 126 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.917 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.644 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.833 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.398 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.686 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5