argument234 倒计时15天。。

water5045UID: 2688074

TOPIC: ARGUMENT234 - The following appeared in a newspaper feature story.

"There is now evidence that the relaxed manner of living in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities. Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual workers than do businesses in the nearby large city of Mason City. Furthermore, Leeville has only one physician for its one thousand residents, but in Mason City the proportion of physicians to residents is five times as high. And the average age of Leeville residents is significantly higher than that of Mason City residents. These findings suggest that people seeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities."
WORDS: 409          TIME: 00:34:12          DATE: 2010/3/5 16:53:01



    In this argument,the author concludes that relaxed manner of living in small towns promotes better health and longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities.To bolster this conclusion,the author cites that the days of sick leave taken by workers in business are fewer than those in nearby large city of Mason City,and the ratio of physicians to population
and average age of Leeville residents are both higher.However,this argument is unpersuasive for several reasons.
  The first problem with this argument is that the author unreasonably assumes that the health of people in Leeville is better according to the days of sick leave in businesses.Obviously,that evidence cannot reflect the overall health conditions of Leeville's people because the workers' health in business field is not representative .Without justifying that the health of residents in Leeville
is better,the author's conclusion is unsound.
  Another problem is that the ratio of residents to physicians is not indication that people in Leeville don't need so many physicians as people do in Mason City.Without evidence that the number of physicians are enough for Leeville's residents and they are able to provide qualified service ,the author cannot conclude that people in Leeville are more healthy.Perhaps the people
are dissatisfied with the poor health conditions in Leeville and many residents often go to Mason City to cure their diseases due to the convenience in Mason.
  The third problem is the assumption that the comparison of Leeville and Mason is representative.The author fails to prove that this comparison is meaningful and reflects the true health conditions in each kind of areas they represent.Lacking such evidence,it is entirely possible that the two areas exceptions and in fact people's health and longevity have nothing to do with where they live and what their living styles are at all.
  Finally,there is a flaw in the author's conclusion,which is that the average age of people in different areas is not necessarily the indication of people's longevity.The information of the two ares' construction of people' age is unknown,so possibilities are that Mason City is a fast-- developing city with many opportunities for young people ,while Leeville is more attractive for  the older to relax because it is quiet and beautiful,or that Mason City's better education make more new couples to move there for their children.
  In sum,this argument is unpersuasive due to some unsound assumptions.To better evaluate the argument,information about that two areas is needed and the author must provide evidence to justify that the comparison between the two areas is representative.Finally,the author had better investigate the real longevity in Leeville and Mason rather than the average age.