GMAT-AWA argument No.11 (p.86)

At first glance, the author's argument appears to be somehow appealing, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. The author of this editorial concludes that the residents of San Perdito would be provided with better municipal services is they voted Montoya our of office and reelected Varro. This conclusion is based on the limited comparison of the increase or decrease of the population and the unemployment rate of the city of San Perdito. Evidently, oversimplification and a post hoc fallacy make the argument invalid.
First of all, because the argument leaves out several key factors, it is not sound or persuasive. The author mentioned that Montoya's term had only negative impacts on the city of San Perdito, neglecting possible positive ones. In the first four years, for instance, the city's crime rate might have declined, pollution problems might have improved, and quality of education might have gotten better. All the circumstances mentioned above should be evaluated as well. However, the author mentions only the population loss and the unemployment rate of San Perdito to evaluate the two mayors' performances. He excluded other important indicators on which the residents of San Perdito might place more emphasis.
In addition, a post hoc fallacy makes the argument invalid. The author assumes that because one event follows another in time, the first event caused the second. In other words, he mistakes a temporal connection for a causal connection. The fact that the population decreased and the unemployment rate increased after Montoya was elected to be the mayor of San Perdito city may be a matter of coincidence, not cause and effect. The author unfairly assumes that the economic and environmental conditions during Montoya's term in office are the same as those during Varro's term. However, the assumption is questionable because the author does not provide hard evidence to prove that only the Montoya administration caused these problems. Furthermore, some factors would likely affect the city economy. For example, a statewide or worldwide recession may have caused and increase in the unemployment rate. Besides, business closure does not directly denote that mayor Montoya had some flaws in his municipal policies. Perhaps the businesses had their own thorny or insurmountable problems contributing to the failures.
In conclusion, the author oversimplifies the argument by reducing all factors affecting the economy of San Perdito to the Montoya administration. Therefore, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to consider all other possible factors that affect the city economy and other significant indicators to evaluate the performance of the mayors.