The notion that Parson City place a higher value on education than Blue City seems cogent at first glance. This is because even though the two cities have the same number of residents and Parson City provides as twice money as Blue City on education. At the same time, the taxes afford the most cost of education. Nonewithless, the argument is filled up with logical mistakes and assumptions. More evidence is necessary to preclude other explanations.
To begin with, the arguer fails to prove that the people in two cities provide same amount of tax. Admittedly, the number of residents of two cities are similar. The economy of two cities may different greatly. At the same time, each city may follow different rules to gain taxes. It is hard to deny that these two cities have the same income. However, the different income may also provide the same quality of education. With a different enconomy, the cost of employing teachers and holding up events would be different, too. In this case, the opinion that Parson City provides a good education is less fair.
Moreover, the arguer fails to provide the use of the money mentioned in argument. Although Parson City costs as twice as Blue City, the money may be spent on useless aspects. The local leader of Parson City may prefer to use money to buy more docorations for recreation. At the same time, the schools in Parson City may fail to pay money for employment or other else past. And they spend much more money just for paying these. Therefore, more evidence of the using method of money ought to be provided.
Finally, even though the assumptions above are proved, the arguer still fail to clare that two cities in argument are carrying education with the money from tax. There is no doubt that majority of public schools recieved money from tax in Trillura. Nevertheless, the cities mentioned above may fails to follow that idea. The public schools in Blue City may recieve money from its own bussiness or social fund. In this condition, the fewer money recieved from government would not be a cogent opinion to question the quality of schools in Blue City.
To sum up, the argument is less cogent than seem. It is significant to provide the evidence mentioned above to preclude other explanations and make the argument more persuasive.
The notion that Parson City place a higher value on
education
than
Blue
City seems cogent at
first
glance. This is
because
even though
the two
cities
have the same number of residents and Parson City
provides
as twice
money
as
Blue
City on
education
. At the same time, the
taxes
afford the most cost of
education
.
Nonewithless
, the
argument
is filled
up with logical mistakes and assumptions. More evidence is necessary to preclude other explanations.
To
begin
with, the arguer
fails
to prove that the
people
in two
cities
provide
same amount of
tax
.
Admittedly
, the number of residents of two
cities
are similar. The economy of two
cities
may
different
greatly
. At the same time, each city may follow
different
rules
to gain
taxes
. It is
hard
to deny that these two
cities
have the same income.
However
, the
different
income may
also
provide
the same quality of
education
. With a
different
enconomy
, the cost of employing teachers and holding up
events
would be
different
, too.
In this case
, the opinion that Parson City
provides
a
good
education
is less
fair
.
Moreover
, the arguer
fails
to
provide
the
use
of the
money
mentioned in
argument
. Although Parson City costs as twice as
Blue
City, the
money
may
be spent
on useless aspects. The local leader of Parson City may prefer to
use
money
to
buy
more
docorations
for recreation. At the same time, the
schools
in Parson City may
fail
to pay
money
for employment or other else past. And they spend much more
money
just
for paying these.
Therefore
, more evidence of the using method of
money
ought to
be provided
.
Finally
,
even though
the assumptions above
are proved
, the arguer
still
fail
to
clare
that two
cities
in
argument
are carrying
education
with the
money
from
tax
. There is no doubt that majority of public
schools
recieved
money
from
tax
in
Trillura
.
Nevertheless
, the
cities
mentioned above may
fails
to follow that
idea
. The public
schools
in
Blue
City may
recieve
money
from its
own
bussiness
or social fund. In this condition, the fewer
money
recieved
from
government
would not be a cogent opinion to question the quality of
schools
in
Blue
City.
To sum up, the
argument
is less cogent than seem. It is significant to
provide
the evidence mentioned above to preclude other explanations and
make
the
argument
more persuasive.