GRE Argument review for rookies

[zhichaolitju]

Hi, Guys

Please help me review this argument. Any feedback is more than welcome. Thanks 

The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement.

"Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire, because it has spectacular natural beauty and a consistent climate. Another advantage is that housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Moreover, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. And best of all, retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average."

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.

The article is trying to advertising Clearview as the best candidate for all retire people, but it’s vague and inconsistent argument causing its conclusion to be not persuasive.

It first brings up one of the reason as considering for top choice to be its natural beauty and climate, but the premise is all people, who are seeking retirement, is prefer that. There will be cases that people enjoy changing climate to feel the heat of summer and snow of winter. Thus, if majority of the people consider change weather as their preference, this is not the place to be.

Some comparison on house cost and taxes are also provided in the article, but without base number to quantify, the full picture is not provided. House cost can fall significantly but still high since initial price can be much higher. Also, in terms of tax, only mentioning nearly towns is also incomplete, since the whole area may have terrifying tax rate overall.

Physicians are also mentioned in the article, but the premise it is assuming is larger number of physicians leads to higher health care quality. Without considering the qualification as well as the scope of each physician, the conclusion cannot be made.

Overall the argument is trying to advertising Clearview but those assumptions as well as missing link render the conclusion disbelief.