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. However, at

The author believes that the committee needs to be consisted of residents as they perceive the situation of their town better than anyone. Because the taxes are gathered from residents, the author believes, they better know where to spend them. Based on that assumption, the author predicts that if the criteria of choosing committee members are restricted to residents, the town would be more suitable for living and working. The author’s argument lacks enough illustration. To evaluate the conclusion, the following questions are needed to be answered.

First, the author mentions a recent “foolish” objections of the committee, which precluded taking important decisions at some meetings. To illustrate the “foolish” performance of the committee the author needs to ask what the reasons of objections are that made their work foolish. It is possible that the committee has its own reasons to preclude the decisions. Their objections might stand in good stead for the city. Saying merely that recently in some cases the committee has opposed some important decisions in the city does not show their incompetence.

Secondly, the author asserts that only people who are living in the Oak city can fully understand the business and politics of the city, not the people who only work in Oak City. The author needs to ask whether being a resident of a town is different from having a job in the city to be legitimated as the town committee. Those who work in a city, are directly influenced by the business and policy of the city. A normal shift of work is 8 hours per day, so an individual who works in a city normally “lives” a part of his/her life there and senses the policy and business changes.

Thirdly, the author needs to ask what the criteria are for choosing such committee members. It is possible that residents themselves voted for such representatives, or they might be appointed by a superior who has thoroughly assessed their aptitude before appointing them. If these are the case, the committee members deserve their position as either residents or a legitimate power has appointed them. Knowing these answers help us to evaluate the author’s conclusion whether those who are not residents are deserved to be committee members or not.

In short, the foolishness of the committee members, the exclusive aptness of the residents in order to control their taxes, and the way the committee members are appointed, are not clear. The answer to enumerated questions will illustrate the argument which conclusion is based on to further evaluate the conclusion.