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 coll

In this argument the author hints to spending the majority of money coming from taxes for educational system of cities from the region Trillura and exemplifies two cities whose residents have spent different amount of money on their public schools. he concludes that the residents of the city who spent more money on their public school have put more attention and value on providing good education in public schools. However, he fails to provide plausible evidences. In what follows I will illustrate some of evidences that he should have adduced.

Before anything else , the author neglects to provide enough information about the crucial factors of determining the amount of budget for each city. It is not clear that if each city in this region has its own rule for the budgetary priority then how the author claims that the majority of the tax revenue spent on the schools. Besides, the schools demands differ every year, there is no documentary data to show that the majority of revenue spents on schools. The author should provide justifiable evidences to show that how much money placed for city-run public school. moreover, The author does not followed this note that in each governing system there are debauchery, money laundry and someone in the court for money distributers. So the writer should clarify the documents about each city and their amount of money spending.

In next step, the writer epitomized two different cities whose residents spent money variously on public schools. He represent Parson City whose resident spent twice as much as Blue city on public schools. However, he fails to mention that how much students are in each city. Maybe the number of the residents of two cities are the same but the number of students differ. And city authority have to place more money on their schools. This cannot be a proper reason for placing higher value on providing good education on public schools.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that why Parson City authorities place more money on the public school. Maybe the schools of Parson City are such dilapidated that the authority have to spend much more money than before on revitalizing the school condition. So this is a moot point if say residences of Parson City put more value on public schools which its situation is not comparable with blue city.

In the final analysis , the writer’s conclusion about Parson City residents who put more value on public schools cannot be taken to be correct because, as it was shown in the paragraphs above, it is based on a number of premises not bolstered properly by adequate evidences. The conclusion can only be accepted if the required evidences are presented.