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 c

The argument advocates for Clearview as a top choice for retirees based on its natural elements and beauty, falling housing costs and taxes, city improvements, and excellent healthcare due to the number of physicians in the area. Although plausible, the argument does not include sufficient evidence to be properly evaluated, and such evidence may severely hamper the conclusion.

Firstly, the argument suggests that Clearview should be a top choice due to the natural beauty and consistent climate. However, there is not evidence presented to ascertain a positive fit between retirees and nature/climate. "Consistent climate" does not parallel with "good climate." There could be a chance that it consistently rains in Clearview. If this is the case, it is not feasible for retirees to live here because of the complications associated with the rain. Elderly folk often find it difficult to live in rainy settings because it makes everyday actions for more complicated and they become more susceptible to sickness in such a climate. Additionally, natural beauty may refer to views of mountain tops or rivers, but retirees could prefer to gaze at downtown skylines instead. If this is the case, then nature would not be an important factor for retirees looking for a place to live. Thus, the conclusion would be undermined if either of these pieces of evidence proves to be true.

Secondly, the magazine article claims that falling house prices make Clearview an ideal location to retire, without presenting the actual cost of the houses. If housing costs in Clearview were initially extremely pricey, these falling costs may still be expensive, making it unaffordable for retirees. Additionally, these costs are not compared to other retirement cities, so it is impossible to judge whether these costs are representative of such towns. If housing costs are falling, but are still significantly higher than other retirement towns, then Clearview would not be a top location for retirees. If either of these circumstances holds water, than the argument is severely weakened.

Lastly, the argument claims that elderly folk in Clearview will receive excellent healthcare since there are more physicians in the area than the national average. However, no evidence is provided to ascertain what types of physicians are in the area and whether they work in the area. If the majority of physicians located in Clearview specialize in pediatrics, then it is unlikely that they will be helping the retirees. Additionally, physicians located in this area may travel to work in other cities, again suggesting that they would not be able to assist the retirees. Lastly, the number of physicians does not correlate to the number of facilities in the area. If there is only one hospital and a few small clinics, retirees may have to suffer long wait times in order to receive medical assistance. Thus, equating the number of physicians in the area to excellent healthcare seems far-fetched. With any of this evidence, the argument that retired people should move to Clearview since they will receive exceptional healthcare is hampered.

Although presented plausibly, the argument is not cogent enough to ascertain whether Clearview should be a top location for retired people to live. More evidence is needed in order to evaluate the argument effectively, including the fit between retirees and the climate/nature, the housing costs relative to other towns, and whether physicians in the area are actually helping the retired people in Clearview. With this evidence, the argument becomes far more conclusive.