GRE ARGUMENT:The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper."The primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the city government on how to make the best use of the city's limited budget

The letter states that some committee members hider Oak City to become better since they do not live in and comprehend Oak City well. The author supports that the Committee membership should restrain to local people. This proposal might hold water; however, there might be some other reasons cause this proposal unconvincing.

First of all, the author argues that the Committee members who are not residents of Oak City do not understand Oak City. Nevertheless, there might be other methods that render non-resident committee members comprehend other city well. It is possible that they were growing up in Oak City and their families still live there. In this way, non-resident committee members might not only perceive thoroughly the history but also the current needs of Oak City.

Secondly, the letter contends that failing to reach essential consensus since the objection came from the non-resident committee members who lack knowledge of Oak City of. Notwithstanding, members who disagree some decision do not represent they are not wise or not understand residents' needs. They might have their reasons to oppose the decisions. For instance, they might evaluate the long term profits and then find out a decision might benefit this generation but harm the next generation. Then, some people who desire for current interest might recognize that the opposite committee hider Oak City to earn profit.

Finally, the author cites that sole Oak City residents who pay city taxes and then concern about the budget going. Nonetheless, there might be other causes that render people concern Oak City. For example, people who work in Oak City might also concern about the prosperity of Oak City since there is where their salaries come from. If the economy of Oak City is impoverished, they might not have their jobs and salaries in Oak City. Therefore, the non-resident committee members might concern the economy of Oak City as much important as residents.

Although the author provides several points to support the proposal, the opposite committee members might have their reasons to vote against. The proposal should not be accepted until the more information of non-resident committee members and details about the decisions which mentioned in the letter have been supplied.