AWA练习，发帖求指教

moooon4

11. 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 for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro.”

        In this conclusion, the argument endorsed by the author is that the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro. Adducinggrounds to buttress his argument, the author cites the facts that the unemployment rate increased and populationhas decreased when Montoya has served as mayor in the first four years, whereas the situations reversed when Varro served as mayor for four years before Montoya. The author, therefore ,maintains that the mayor Varro will provide citizens with better services than mayor Montaya does. However, careful consideration of these facts reveals that the argument is problematic in several respects.

To begin with, the author's conclusion that the mayor V will provide better services than mayor M does relies on the unjustifiable assumption that all conditions remain unchanged in the city of San Perdito during the eight years, which, however, are sufficient for a significant change to take place in the overall economy and social condition. Without taking these possibilities into account, the author can not convince me that the mayor V can do a better job than mayor M.

Moreover, even with the assumption stated above, the forecast that the residents will be best served if the voted for the mayor V is still open to uncertainty. The author fail to consider and rule out other criteriafor determining the best service people can get, such as the safety of neighborhood, the quality of the environment, etc. Lacking the evidence to substantiate the population and unemployment rate are the only factors to determine the level of mayor's service, it is possible that mayor M will serve people better with his contribution to other fields.

In conclusion, the argument is not compelling and not undeniable as it stands. Only with more solid confirmation, along with more concrete evidences, can the argument be viewed as rational and verifiable. To bolster the argument, the author would have to consider that influences brought by the changeable environment during the four years. In addition, the author would also have to present the justification to demonstrate more respects that can reflect the life level instead of just presenting the changes in population and unemployment rate.