Essay topics: The following appeared in a letter to the editor of Parson City's local newspaper.
"In our region of Trillura, the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend—the city-run public schools—comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the budgetary priority they give to public education. For example, both as a proportion of its overall tax revenues and in absolute terms, Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. Clearly, Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good education in public schools than Blue City residents do."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In Trillura region,the city of Parson spents more on providing good education to the city residents than the Blue city.This conclusion has been derived from the fact that recently Parson has spent twice the amount expended by Blue city.However,this reasoning is based on several unwarranted assumptions which highly undermine the validity of the conclusion.
Both the cities have public schools where most of the city students take education.No evidence has been provided about the number of such schools in each city.Are they equal?.Does Parson city has more public schools compared to Blue city?.If yes,than the comparison of fund allocated for public education is fallible.Since public schools are more in Parson city,it will eventually have to spent more for maintenance of each school.Hence without knowing the number of schools in each city,it is erroneous to deduce that Parson city values good education than Blue city based on the amount of funds allocated for public schools.
As mentioned that Parson city has recently spent more on the public schools than Blue city.What was the need of spending more money?.Was it due to poor quality of education or infrastructure earlier?.The argument has overlook these plausible reasons for recent accretion in the money spent on public schools of Parson city.Parson city might be receiving complaints from the city residents for the inferior quality of education provided,and therefore might have decide to upgrade the quality or infrastructure by allocating more money compared to previous years.Blue city is not spending more has its public schools already provide good quality education and therefore there is no need to accrue more funds than usual to allocate for public schools.Hence the argument is weakned due to lack of reasons for the increase in more money spent on public schools in Parson city.
Further,the funds budgeted for public schools are collected from the tax paid by the city residents in each city.Do the tax rates in each city are equal?.Also is the average income earned by a person in each city equal?.If the tax rates are more in Parson city compared to Blue city given that each person average earnings are almost similar in each city,than Parson city is bound to garner more money to utilize for public school education in comparsion to Blue city.Even if the tax rates are equal in each city,but the average earnings of people in Parson city is more than Blue city and therefore more money gets allocated to provide quality education.The argument needs to do further study to find out the tax rate waged on residents of each city and the average income of each city residents.Without these statistical data,the claim of the argument is unjustified that Parson citys value good quality education more than Blue city.
Hence the argument makes several assumptions in deducing that Parson city’s residens value good education more than Blue city.Indeed if these assumptions hold true,than the conclusion totally falls apart.