177
The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.
"Membership in Oak City's Civic Club—a club whose primary objective is to discuss local issues—should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict membership to city residents because only residents pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak City, since neighboring Elm City's Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm City's Club in the last ten years."
1---no evidence is given to demonstrate that those people who work in O C but live elsewhere cannot really understand the business and politics of the city. Maybe most of the businessmen in O C come from other cities. If it is the case, it is impossible that they do not truly known the situation of OC. On the contrary, they are just those who are aware of the business and politics there most clearly.
2---the author unfairly assumes that only those local residents pay taxes to its government, which lacks evidence. As the author points out in the argument, there are people works in O C but they do not live there. Then the possibility that some local residents living in O C work in other places exists. It is highly possible that they do not understand the local business clearly as expected.
3---the author conducts a false analogy between E C and OC .He or she ignores the differences of them. Though in the past ten years only 25 nonresidents were included in the E C'Club, no information indicates that they did not play an important role in the club because the total number of members in the club is not pointed out. If there are 50 members in the club totally during the past years, conclusion will be reached that nonresidents should not be ignored in the process of electing members. On the other hand, if it is true in E C the nonresidents are not important/are not dominated as supposed, the detailed situation concerning those nonresidents in O C remains unknown, which causes the claim unconvincing. Thus the suggestion will lead to disappointment and discontent of nonresidents in O C.