"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 collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the budgetary priority they give to p

In this argument the writer of the letter asserts that in Trillura , parson city devote more money than blues city though they have the same number of residents. the writes cites that parson city assess more value on good education since they spent more money to provide a better education. Thus the writer concludes that government collects taxes and spent in education in parson than in Blue city.this argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the writer notes that parson city spent money in education which most students attend, but the writer provides no evidence about numbers of student in these cities. The writer fails to provide details in numbers of students in two cities which are comparable in their quality .Perhaps in Blue city there are 100 students in city run public school hence there is no reason to spent more money on these schools.

Furthermore, we are not informed about numbers of students in Parson too. Also the writer makes no distinction among females and male students .Moreover , the writer assume that there are same number of residents in both cities however he does not take into account how much tax collected from these cities. he gives no proof to support his argument .perhaps , regardless of same proportion ,Blue city collects much more tax and its revenue possess parson city.

Secondly , the writer concludes that Parson City assess more value on education, on the other hand the writer fails to establish a correlation between a better education and money spent on education. In addition to this , the writers conclusion is unconvicing and unsupported by weak evidence. also the writer fails to convince the readers about how money spent for education will enhance the education level. there is no proof presented associating the better education with money spent on education.

In summary , the writer of the letter fails to establish a relationship between the money on spent education and a good education. We also not informed how they devote the money they collected to education, they construct new building or new premise for schools.the evidence presented are extremely weak and unsupported. for a stronger argument the writer need to provide a direct evidence that associating a good education with money spent on education.