Workers in the small town of Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in the large city of Masonton 50 miles away Moreover relative to population size the diagnosis of stress related illness is proportionally much lower in Leeville than in Masonton Acco

The Leeville Chamber of Commerce defends that due only to the relaxed pace of life in Leeville, its habitants are less frequently ill than the residents of Masonton, a large city in the same region. Although this argument has a certain logic to it, it is possible to find alternative explanations for the facts presented by the author. such as the differences in levels of pollution and disease exposure as well as in the nature of the work in each city.

First, a possible explanation for the fact that workers in Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in Masonton is the level of pollution in both cities. Typically, the level of air pollution in large cities is critical to people’s health as opposed to small towns where the air is usually close to being pure. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the people from Masonton are more subject to having respiratory diseases which might stop them from going to work.

In addition, in large cities people are usually more exposed to diseases. With a larger population, people are often in crowded closed spaces, such as subways, where viruses and bacterias can easily spread. In contrast, in small towns these situations are not so common. Assuming that this holds true for Masonton and Leeville, it can also help to explain the difference in the frequence of absences related to illness.

Finally, the amount of stress-related illness in each city may be due not to the pace of life, but to the nature of the work in each town. It is possible that Masonton has a more industrial structure of production whereas Leeville has primiraly family businness. In this case, people in Masonton would be expected to work longer hours and to be more productive than in Leeville. Therefore, it is natural that habitants of Masonton are usually more stressed. Evidently, the pace of life is a consequence of the working habits of the population, but is not the main cause for the facts presented in the argument.

Thus, the argument is not completely sound. Although the pace of life may help explain the differences in the levels of stress and the frequence of sick days taken by workers in both cities, a more complete analysis of these differences would have to take into account the facts previously mentioned.