The argument presented by the author sounds good and appears reasonable at first glance: as the author states that the amount of money collected from the taxes, is spent on public schools in higher proportion in the Parson City than in Blue City, thus, Parson City residents offer a better education in public schools than do Blue City residents. However, as more light is shed on the issue and more detailed facts are concerned, it is easy to point that the argument is rife with holes and suffers from several fallacious assumptions.
Firstly, citing at the statement presented by the author that despite the number of residents being the same in both the cities, Parson City has spent almost twice of its revenue for its public schools than did Blue City. Here, the author makes a clear assumption that the number of residents being the same, the number of students will be the same. In fact, this cannot be the case. The Parson City might have more students than the Blue City, thus, indulging Parson City to spent more of its revenue in public schools compared to that of Blue City.
Moreover, even if it is the case that the number of students are almost same and even though Blue City does spend lesser than the Parson City spent for its public schools. Thus that really mean that Parson City residents are more concerned for its public schools than that of the residents of the Blue City? Here, the author juxtaposed the two cities based on the statistics of a particular single year. There is every possibility that in the previous years the Blue City has used up much of its revenues in rejuvenating and improving the infrastructures of its public schools and they do not require much of financial support in the current year as anything required is already obtained. This may not be the case with Parson City.
Lastly, the author makes a clear assumption that the Parson City residents pays higher importance to quality education in public schools as compared to that of Blue City residents. The author bases this point merely on just one assumption that the Parson City residents use its revenue on public school development more than that of Blue City residents do. The author before stating the point does not focuses on any of the other factors and possibilities in the two cities. There can be a possible instance in the Blue City that the number of students opting to go to a public school are less compared to that of those who prefer private schools and the reversal might be the case with Parson City.
In order to bolster the argument, the author has to present more cogent and concrete evidences regarding the student population and their preference over private and public schools. He/she should also present the previous years record of spending on public schools in both the cities. Thus, the unsubstantiated assumptions made by the author makes his/her argument weaker and open to debate.