GRE Argument Topic 94

NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Tasks 85 and 96 of this Website. However, if you read carefully you will notice that the topic and the task instructions are different. Hence, it is very important to read the topic as well as its instructions completely before you start to write your response.

Sample 1:

The author of this argument uses the small town of Leeville and the large city of Masonton as examples of evidence that shows life in a small town is better for one's health than is life in a large city. The assumptions in the argument are based on some vague generalities without real numbers or statistics to clarify them. A number of alternatives can shoot holes in the substance of this position.

The argument assumes that people live longer in Leeville because it is a small town. It may simply be that older people have chosen to live in a small town rather than in the large city of Masonton. Anyone traveling up and down either coast of Florida, especially during the winter months, will pass through dozens of small towns where the average age is considerably higher than the average age in the cities of that state. In fact, those towns are largely populated by the elderly, at least for several months of the year. They are retirement communities. Senior citizens from colder states flock there each autumn and stay until late spring. Without facts to the contrary, one could assume that Leeville, also, is a retirement community. There may be covenants that prohibit people under a certain age, say 55, from living there. Residents of Leeville may not have selected this community because the pace of life is slower; they have, in fact, created that pace simply by living there. In contrast, large cities are bound to have a broader demographic and a lower average age as a result. The population will be a mix of young singles, families with young children, along with some senior citizens.

The higher proportion of doctors to residents in Masonton could arise from the presence of one or more medical centers in the city. In fact, it would be hard to name or imagine a large city without several health care facilities. Therefore, assuming that the larger number of doctors in Masonton derives from the greater number of sick people there may be erroneous. The elderly almost always require visits to a number of specialists, especially cardiologists, oncologists, and rheumatologists. A town of one thousand residents is not likely to have physicians practicing in those specialties. The one doctor in Leeville can probably provide sufficient care for minor ailments, but serious conditions must be treated in Masonton. Older citizens may prefer to live in smaller towns with a slower pace of life but desire comprehensive medical care to be in close proximity.

The assumption that Leeville’s citizens are much older than the citizens of Masonton needs some further examination. The significant difference in median age between Leeville and Masonton may be a result of Masonton’s having an unusually large percentage of young people. It would not be unreasonable to expect that Masonton has one or more colleges; most large cities do. When classes are in session, the average age of Masonton residents would drop considerably. One of these colleges may even have a medical school which contributes to the high number of doctors in the city.

Assuming that all small towns exhibit the same characteristics of Leeville is risky. Small towns in rural or remote areas may not provide a healthy lifestyle for their residents. People of all ages in these towns are likely to find quality health care difficult to access. Certainly, the residents will have to travel some distance to see specialists of any sort. In the case of an emergency, a citizen may have to wait a significant amount of time for help to arrive and spend additional time being transported to a medical facility. Heart attacks and strokes, common among the elderly, are survivable if treated quickly, something not likely to occur in small, rural towns.

The longevity of Leeville residents may be a direct result of its proximity to the large city of Masonton. A healthy life requires balance. Leeville residents can relax in the comfort of their homes in the quiet, small town but be stimulated by the activities available in Masonton. Remaining active and interested and living close to adequate healthcare is as good a recipe for longevity as residing in a small town where little ever happens.

Sample 2:

The argument given above is a newspaper feature story. It reports that a relaxed small town life is healthier than the fast paced city life. That is why people should consider moving to a smaller town for better health and longer life. It supports this argument with evidence from a small town of Leeville and the city of Mason by comparing the business and general health of people in the two places. However, the evidence given in the argument can be taken as a mere fact that does not support the given statement. The author of the feature story does not consider the possible interpretations of the facts that he presents as evidence. Hence, his stand that small town living is healthier for people is not supported strongly.

The author says that there have been fewer cases of sick leave taken by workers in Leeville than in Mason City. With this fact the author wants to say that fewer people fall sick in smaller towns. However, it can be argued that workers engaged in businesses do not constitute the whole population. There could be many people in Leeville who are not workers, like students, females, children and the old, but are falling sick and have health related problems. It is likely that there are fewer businesses in Leeville since it is a small town. Consequently, compared to Mason City, there would be fewer workers as well. Therefore, if there are few reports of sick leave taken by workers, it is not because people are healthier in Leeville but because there are fewer workers in the town as compared to Mason City.

The argument further gives the ratio of the number of physicians of the place for every thousand residents as proof of better health in smaller towns. This is, however, a baseless evidence since it does not prove that the health of people in smaller towns is better than that of bigger cities. If there is only one physician for thousand residents of Leeville, it does not indicate that the number of patients is lesser as well. How healthy the residents of a place are is not seen by the number of physicians but by the number of patients. There are chances that the number of patients that a single physician sees is higher in Leeville than the number of patients seen by the physicians of Mason City. Moreover, the health of a society also depends upon the efficiency of these physicians. Hence, this fact that there are fewer physicians in Leeville does not prove that the health of the residents is better than in Mason.

Last but not the least, it can be argued that the findings of Leeville and Mason City cannot be used to generalize the fact that people in smaller towns live longer and healthier lives. It might be true that the average age of residents of Leeville is more than that of Mason City, but this may or may not be true for any other place. There could be other small towns where the average age of residents is lesser than that of those in Mason City. Similarly, there could be another big city apart from Mason City, where the people experience better health and longer lives than those of Leeville do. The health of a person is dependent upon many factors like health care facilities, pollution, stress etc. While there are many factors like pollution and stress that is inherent in city life, it is also true that a bigger city offers better health care facilities, qualified and experienced doctors and clean living conditions. Hence, the measure of the health of residents is subject to many factors that are ignored by the author. Moreover, it is clear that the evidence provided by the author is baseless and therefore the argument does not have any logical explanation because of which it becomes weak and inappropriate.