The author of this letter to the editor of Parson City's local newspaper argues that Parson City places a higher value on its public education than Blue City does, based on the amount of money spent for public schools. At first glance, this argument may seem convincing; however, on closer inspection one can quickly recognize that this letter is rife with unwarranted assumptions that lack relevant evidence.
First of all, the major assumption the author relies on is that the amount of money spent for public schools is well representative of the degree of value a city places on public education. In terms of money, it is true that Parson City spends much more money for its public schools than Blue City does, as the author mentions. However, there are numerous factors that determine a city’s quality of education. In other words, we cannot say that a city has high quality of education only because the city government spend a lot of money for its public schools. When we talk about quality of education, we take account of lots of things: student-teacher ratio, schools’ facilities, average score in national standardized test or narrow achievement gaps among students. However, the author does not consider as possible factor that could be crucial for quality of education, other than the amount of money spent for public schools.
Furthermore, we need to think of the reasons why Parson City spends such a lot of money for public schools and the subsequent money usage of the public schools in Parson City. It may be inevitable for Parson City to spend much money in public schools because these schools' facilities are incredibly poor, so students could not concentrate their study to date. This problem might have long been serious in Parson City, but the city government has neglected it. And this might be why Parson City has "recently" spent much money to improve the public school's facilities. Moreover, we do not know how money from the city government in Parson has been used by the public schools in Parson. Has it really been used for students and their education? The Parson's public schools may spend the money in vain while taking place useless school parties or building new school galleries just for schools' appearances. On the contrary, the majority of their students have not received good education because of poor curriculums and lazy teachers. If the author strengthen his argument, he needs to provide specific data about how the money from the government has been used in both two cities' public schools.
Third, the author also assumes that there would be about the same number of students as well as residents between the two cities. However, the same number of residents does not necessarily means the same number of students. If there are considerably more students in Parson City than in Blue City, it would make sense that the amount of money spent for public schools in Parson is much higher than those in Blue. In reality, the majority of residents in Blue City may be senior citizens, so Blue City does not have to invest its money to public education. On the contrary, a lot of students and their young parents may reside in Parson City, thus making its government to spend much money for public schools. Moreover, it is entirely possible that in Blue City, there may be a lot of private schools while Parson City has a number of public schools. In such a case, the city government in Blue should not use its money from its citizens' taxes. Thus the author should present the evidence that prove the same number of students and public schools in both two cities.
To sum up, the author should provide more detailed and sound evidence about his claim.