City and State

The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine on lifestyles:

"Two years ago, City L was listed 14th in an annual survey that ranks cities according to the quality of life that can be enjoyed by those living in them. This information will enable people who are moving to the state in which City L is located to confidently identify one place, at least, where schools are good, housing is affordable, people are friendly, the environment is safe, and the arts flourish."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The article asserts that people moving to the state in which city L is located would be able to confidently identify at least one place where schools are good, housing is affordable, people are friendly, the environment is safe, and the arts flourish. The fact that City L was listed 14th in an annual survey that ranks cities according to the quality of life that can be enjoyed in them is presented as an evidence for the same. The reasoning is flawed on many counts.

The first and the most significant logical flaw is the attempt to super-impose results for one city on the whole state. The fact that one city in the state is ranked 14 in some annual survey does not necessarily make the entire state as good as the city. Perhaps, it is the only city in the whole state that is any good! Unless and until the reasoning plugs in this gap by mentioning that the majority of cities in the state are modelled around city L, the reasoning cannot appear strong. It needs to state categorically what makes it believe that the entire state would be as good as the city.

Another weak point is the fact that the methodology of the survey is not clear, i.e. it is not clear what factors are taken into consideration to arrive at the ranking. It is indirectly implied that the survey takes into account good schooling, affordable housing, friendly people, safe environment and flourishing arts. Nevertheless, it is not stated clearly if it is indeed so. Mentioning such a correlation would strengthen the argument.

Finally, the body that conducted the survey has not been mentioned. This tends to dent the credibility of the survey as it may have been undertaken by some shoddy and biased agency. If the article mentions who conducted the survey, it would add credibility to the argument.

Concluding, the argument is weak and flawed. Nevertheless it can be made stronger if the article can justify the basis of super-imposing the result of one city on the whole state. In fact, it can add further strength to the argument if it gives the source of the survey and clearly mentions the various factors taken into consideration to arrive at the stated rankings.