Workers in the small town of Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in the large city of Masonton, 50 miles away. Moreover, relative to population size, the diagnosis of stress-related illness is proportionally much lower in Leeville than in Masonton.

In this argument, the author makes the assertion that Leevile tends to gain more health benefits than Masonton of larger size due to the relatively relaxed pace of life in the small town. The conclusion is based on a trend that workers in Leevile take fewer sick days than workers in Masonton and a lower proportion of the diagnosis of stress-related illness in Leeville compared to that in Masonton. Whereas, lacking in convincing evidence presented, the validity of his claim would be seriously undermined.

As is mentioned, the fact that workers taking fewer sick days implies a healthier condition in the small town of Leeville. The author apparently premises that numbers of sick days of workers equals to the health condition of the whole community. Nonetheless, he might neglect that workers are merely parts of citizens in a community and different regions have different industry institutions. For instance, in large cities, workers undertake heavier assignments, which are more likely to cause injuries, while employees like managers and officers own better medical service and thereby suffer less from illness than employees in small towns. In this case, the first claim does not authentically reflect the real health condition of each area. Therefore more comprehensive surveys are required to guarantee the objectivity of the conclusion.

In spite of the sick days of workers, less proportion of diagnosis of stress-related illness in Leeville than in Masonton can hardly indicate a healthier condition in the small town either. It is obviously assumed that the proportion of diagnosed illness represents the total amount of such illness in the region. Yet a considerable deal of stress-related illness failing to be recorded should not be neglected. Perhaps, people in small towns possess less awareness to have health examination as frequently as people in large cities, which could undermine the assurance of health advantage in Leeville over Masonton. Thus, we need more reliable description of health condition covering all citizens in each region.

Even if individuals in Leeville appear to be healthier than those in Masonton, the author should not attribute the phenomenon to the difference in pace of life. He clearly precludes the existence of any other causes, which seems unfounded. With more various industries, large cities tend to produce more pollution in air or water that seriously impair one’s body. Besides, the larger popularity could increase the occurance of accidents such as fighting and car crash which are comparatively rare in small towns. Hence the author ought to take more factors in to consideration in order to approve a more comprehensive and reliable conclusion.

Accordingly, this argument attempts to attribute the health advantage in Leevile over Masonton to the more relaxed pace of life based on two statistics. Whereas, failing to provide more details concerning health condition in each region and more comprehensive analysis, his conclusion seems unwarranted.