▶ Your Answer :
Generally speaking, the relaxed pace of life in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than the hectic pace of life in big cities. That being said, in order to prove which life is far better for health and longevity, a variety of aspects of two comparable communities should be addressed prudently in the respect of population, business conditions and so on; in this regard, it follows that the argument comparing societal status of the small town, Leeville, and that of the large city, Maston, is not cogent.
One question that is important to deal with the argument that people who want to live longer and healthier must take moving to small communities into consideration, which is only based upon only the case of Leeville and Maston, is how many people reside in each town and city. According to the argument, fewer individuals in Leeville took sick leave than those in Maston did so that a life in small towns promotes better health. Consider a case that, however, the population of Maston is five times larger than that of Leeville; for example fifty thousands and one thousand respectively, as well as ten days of sick leave in Maston and five days of sick leave in Leeville were taken; apparently, a life in Leeville does not seem to guarantee better health. Therefore, when an argument that is on the basis of comparing two communities is set forth, deeper consideration on their population should be given.
Along with deeper consideration on the ratio of days of sick leave to the population of each community, the arguer should have scrutinized the status quo of medical business narrowly. Notwithstanding, according to the argument, the proportion of physicians to residents of Maston was five times higher than that of Leeville, any testimony to whether inhabitants in Leeville took proper medical care was not provided; in other words, if Leeville does not have sufficient number of physicians so that residents in the town hardly get proper medical care because of poor medical business conditions, a life in Leeville does not seem to guarantee better health also. Furthermore, the average age of a community cannot be an indicator for longevity. What if economically active population of Maston is larger than that of Leeville so that relatively the average age of Leeville is substantially higher than that of Maston? What if the average age of Leeville is substantially higher than that of Maston since Leeville is just a more-aged community? Understandably, inasmuch as the simple proportion of physicians to residents and the average age of a community cannot indicate how well medical business in a community goes and how long people in the community live, whether people in a city get proper medical care should be pondered.
With the assumption that the easy-going pace of life is far better for health and greater longevity than the too-busy pace of life, small towns and large cities are easily compared with each other. In doing so, prior to setting forth a decisive argument, precise surveys on the status quo of societal conditions of two contrasting communities should be conducted. Consequently, the argument that the relaxed pace of life in Leeville promotes better health and greater longevity than the hectic pace of life in Maston is not much persuasive because of its flimsy reasoning. |