Argument216 [infinity小组]7.9

mayaUID: 199038

TOPIC: ARGUMENT216 - The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement.

"Because of its spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate, Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire. As a bonus, housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Nevertheless, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. Retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average."
WORDS: 552         TIME:        DATE: 2006-7-10 世界杯开战前

By providing some alluring environment and programs in Clearview, and relying on the mayor's promises for the construction of Clearview, the article concludes that this area is an excellent place to retire. However, based on some dubious evidence and therefore some unfounded assumptions, this conclusion should be skeptic.

This article's author fails to assume that some natural beauty and consistent climate can attract people to live in Clearview. There are not any information about these factors whether truly attract residents. It is possible that person intending to retire would not want to move from their original. It might be that these person intending to retire have accustomed to live their original home or other factors prevented them must not to move to Clearview, such as the family, customs, or other factors. In addition, natural beauty or consistent climate cannot substantiate that these residents would want to live here. It is entirely possible that they are preferring their original environment which may be even worse than Clearview. No matter what they thought, the fact is that we have any ideas about these people.

Furthermore, the assumption that a fallen housing costs can attract retirees to Clearview  is unreasonable. Firstly, the author has provided no evidence to prove that the fallen housing costs whether is lower than these retirees’ original house. If they are more greatly expansive than their original, the assumption can be unbelievable. Secondly, even if the housing cost is cheaper than their original house, there's no evidence to show the trend which the retirees would buy them. It is might be that the housing cost is still a big money that they should spend on other house though they could sell their original ones. Moreover, the past year's housing cost cannot indicate the condition about today. It is possible that there are no house to sell because the residents of Clearview have bought them. Or, perhaps the housing cost are enhanced than past year and therefore the retirees must consider whether they could buy them and move to here. And all these possibilities about the housing cost questions are also the same hesitation with real estate taxes.

Finally, the evidence about the promise of the mayor is also questionable. Many new programs cannot show that retirees would move in Clearview. It might be that they are accustomed with their original schools, streets, public services, and even the physicians in their original area. Again, the arguer fails to provide specific explanation about the national average. If the number of physicians in original area where retirees has lived is the same, or even far greater  than Clearview, then the assumption of excellent health care cannot be guaranteed. Even if this possibility is true, the arguer also cannot assumes that excellent health care can be continued till retirees grow older.

To sum up, this article has not provided reasonable evidence to support the conclusion. If the author want to convince me to accept what he/she maintains, the specific information about environment of Clearview compared with retirees' original area is needed. In addition, a survey of the opinions by retirees whether they want to move in new place and accurate number of physicians and their level compared with the whole nation and retirees' original place should also be made. Otherwise the argument is logically unaccepted.