There is now evidence that the relaxed pace of life in small towns promotes

better health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities.
Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by
individual workers than do businesses in the nearby large city of Masonton.
Furthermore, Leeville has only one physician for its one thousand residents, but in
Masonton the proportion of physicians to residents is five times as high. Finally, the
average age of Leeville residents is significantly higher than that of Masonton
residents. These findings suggest that the relaxed pace of life in Leeville allows
residents to live longer, healthier lives.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed
explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

The argument states that relaxed pace of small town living promotes better health and greater longevity,
taking Leeville as a sample, than the hectic pace of large cities, as observed in Masonton. Certain
loopholes can be pointed out if examined thoroughly.

The first premise states that fewer days of sick reports in Leeville by individual workers, but that does not
seem a sound judgmental factor for arriving at a conclusion that the general health is of a higher quality.
People may not be always willing to report their sickness, because they may not want to lose a days
wages by taking leave. Then again some may have a greater capacity of bearing up even in times of great
stress and ill-health, shy enough not to come out with their problems, and also preferring to work rather
than be on leave. These internal factors need to be judged before conclusions about less sick people are
arrived at. These are causal or reasoning gaps as they reflect the reasons behind for fewer sick leave
reports.

Secondly it states that only one physician per thousand residents of Leeville, while Masonton has it as
five times higher. But that is not an indicator of good health. In fact it can be just the other way round.
Poor medical facilities, health infrastructure are no incentives for doctors to stay at Leeville, and so the
population can be quite deprived on health grounds. This is again causal in nature.

The sampling flaw is evident here. Only one city and town are compared to draw the sickness
comparison between both. Then again sickness is not confined to working people only, so the general
population health cannot be judged from there.

The statistical figures given need to be checked for their accuracy and also the efficiency of the
measurement tools .

The minor flaws need to be looked into. The authors tone need to be more persuasive than assertive-
expressions like may be, may have been, could be, etc need to be used, rather than is, must be, etc.
The source of the argument is not mentioned. Whether it is an authentic researched article or a
layperson written.
In the light of the above gaps, it can be stated that if the remedies were adequately taken for judging
small town health levels, the argument could have been strengthened. The reasons behind fewer sick
leave, more towns and cities sampled, and also the opinion of people involved, at expertise level , could
have provided more light.