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 Acco

Based on the facts that in smaller city of Leeville there are much less people suffering from stress-related illnesses, and takeing much less sick days than in the city of Masonton, the Leeville Chamber of Commerce baldly conclude that people living in the smaller city of Leeville leave much relaxed and slower life.

First and foremost, considering the fact that in Leeville, proportionally much less people take sick days than in the large city of Masoton, may depend on the employers attitude. In smaller city of Leeville, employers policy may be not so favourable as in the Masonton. Much harsh restrictions may apply in the smaller city compared to the bigger one, where people may be free to take a sick day whenever they want. In Leeville, on the other hand, additional proof from the medical doctor may be required to thake the day off.

Secondly, although the officials reasonably assumed that the fact that in the smaller city much less stress-related illnesses were recorded, may account for the fact that in the smaller city there are much less stressful jobs, and in consequence lead much relaxed pace of life. The Chamber of Commerce did not take into account that the opposite may be true as well. Actually, the smaller city may have much higher amount of stressful jobs, but people living there may be less voulnerable to stress. Additionally, employers policy may be different than in the bigger city, they may create much less stressful and more friendly environment than in the larger city of Masoton.

Additionally, information about the diagnosis of stress-related illnesses according to occupation would give us more confidence when comparing these two cities. What if in the smaller town only small portion of citizens was compares. The results should be representative of two cities, in order to draw proper conclusions. Furthermore, wording of the first sentence is vague and ambiguous. We do not know if the sick days taken were cmpared relatively to whole population.

To recapitulate, although at first the recommendation proposed by the Leeville Chamber of Commerce seems cogent and convincing, there are several gaps in the reasoning. Several alternative recommendations may be plausible as well, having the facts given. One cannot unequivocally conclude that because of the diagnosis of less stress-related illnesses and less sick days taken by the citizens the city of Leeville has much relaxed pace of life.