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 collects The region s cities differ however in the budgetary priority they give to public

In the argument, the author concludes that Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good education in public schools than Blue City residents do. The author comes to this conlusion based on the presumes of both cities same number of residents but Parson City’s double spent for its public schools. Though the authors assumptions might prove to be valid, as it stands now, the author should give evidence for the two unwarranted assumptions for its persuasiveness.
The author assumes that there is a casual relationship between the money spent for the education and value of good education. This might not be the case. Perhaps there are only a few amount of schools in Parson City corresponding to its population and these schools are not sufficient for the residents. As a reason, Parson City recently spent money for building new schools. In addition, the school buildings might not properly developed and that’s why Parson City invested double money to rebuild these schools. If either of the scenario is true, then the author’s conclusion might be significantly weakened.
Furthermore, the author assumes that both city’s education quality is same. However, that might not be the case. Perhaps the Blue City’s education quality is higher than the Parson City and that’s why Parson City invested twice as much per year as Blue City in order to improve the education quality. If it is true than the author’s conclusion might not hold water.
To conclude, the author’s central claim might be true, but as it stands now, the author need to provide evidence for the following alternate for the persuasiveness of the argument.