argument216

guoxuemei205UID: 2151363

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: 468          TIME: 00:28:00          DATE: 2007-7-27 10:53:49

In this argument, the author concludes that Clearview (C) is the one of the best choices for the retirees, just because of its pleasant climate, decreasing housing costs, lower real estate taxes than those in adjacent towns, mayor's promises and more physicians than the nationwide average. On the surface, this conclusion seems reasonable, while a careful examination would reveal several fallacies in it.

To begin with, a threshold problem with the argument is that the author assumes that living in C will cost less and the retirees are concerned about this. In the first place, the housing costs can be higher than other districts in the country, even if they diminish considerably. In addition, although real estate taxes are lower then those in the neighboring towns, they can surpass those in other towns far from C or the national average. In the second place, even if the housing costs and real estate taxes are lower in C, most retires may not care about them at all, especially for those who are extremely rich, these cannot be included in the factors influencing their choices. In short, the author cannot convince me that the housing costs and real estate taxes of other places are higher than those in C and the retires are inclined to take them into consideration.

Furthermore, the author unfairly assumes that the mayor' promises will be executed and these programs will benefit the retirees. Firstly, we are not sure the mayor will definitely keep his/ her promises without any change since he/she may face various pressures from all aspects from the society. Furthermore, it is highly possible that he/she will not be reelected after the end of this tenure, so the programs may not be continued. Secondly, the better schools may have nothing to do with the retirees, and lacking comparison with other districts which can have better streets and public services than C, the author's recommendation is unreasonable.

Finally, the author unfairly assumes that C has better medical treatment level, just based on a invalid comparison. The greater number of physicians than national average does not represent more physicians per citizen.  Moreover, even if more physicians per citizen in C than nationwide average, it is entirely possible that the index of lots of towns is greater. Furthermore, the quality of the doctors, the advancement of the diagnostical and treatment devices should be considered, since the quantity is not a good and representative indicator of the whole medical treatment level in C.


To sum up, the argument is based on several unmeaningful comparisons and limited evidence, therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide more information about the situation in other places, and compare C with them. To better assess it, the author should take into account other factors affecting retirees' decisions.