214In each city in the region of Treehaven, the majority of the money spent on government-run public school education comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region’s cities differ, however, in the value they place on public education. For example,
Parson
City typically budgets twice as much money per year as
Blue
City does for its public schools―even though both cities have about the same number of residents. It seems clear, therefore, that
Parson
City residents care more about public school education than do
Blue
City residents.
In this argument, the arguer’s conclusion that Parson City residents care more about public school education than their neighbors in Blue City is totally inadmissible and fallacious, due to the fact that （because）the arguer’s reasoning suffers several flaws.
The arguer’s sole basis for his claim is the observation that
Parson
City spends twice as much money per year than
Blue
City on public schools, and that the cities have similar population. At a glance this sounds reasonable, but several questions of doubt (delete)can be raised (against this assertion).
First, what are the general economical (economic) situations of the two cities? Even though the cities share a similar number in population, if they differ greatly in economy(financially), with
Parson
City being much more developed and wealthy than
Blue
City, it wouldn’t be surprising that
Parson
City spends more on public school education.(In fact,) This has nothing to do with whether Blue City’s residents care less about education; it is only a matter of how much money can be collected in taxes, which in turn decides how much money can be spent on education. Were the arguer to compare (Have the arguer compared) the percentage of total tax income spent on public school education between the two cities, his claim would be more convincing.
Second, what is the general situation of education in those two cities? Does
Blue
City happen to own a greater number of private schools? If so, then perhaps the number of students attending public school is only half than that of Parson City, which again dismisses the value of the statistics(about public education in judging how much its residents care about it). Or, maybe Blue City’s public schools enjoy financial support from other areas, like corporate support, which might be due to the fact that Blue City is home to a very large corporation(delete). In(Under) both these(delete) scenarios, the level of public school education in Blue City might even be better than that of Parson City, which contradicts with the arguer’s claim.
Furthermore, what is the actual relation (Is there actually any clear relation )between how much residents care about public school education and how much money is spent on it? How the money is spent is decided by the local government, and this might not be an accurate enough reflection of the residents’ ideas. The arguer totally overlooks this point. Also,(Besides) perhaps there are more important issues to deal with(address) which require more urgent investment. This does not reflect that the people don’t care about their education; it may simply be a matter of (placing) priorities.
Thus, without at least providing vital(credible) details on those aforementioned points, this argument is unable to stand close scrutiny. In order to justify his claim, the arguer must substantiate it with more facts which can really help to compare the standard of public school education in the two cities. As it stands, this argument is unconvincing and fallacious.