In this argument, the author notes budgetary differences between two cities in the Treehaven region to argue that the residents of the less-funded city, Blue City, care less about public school education than the residents of the better-funded city parson City. Closer inspection reveals that argument ignores a variety of factors that prove this assumption entirely unsound. The main problem with the argument is that we cannot assume that simply because residents of parson City pays more, that it cares more. The first factor we must consider is that the parson City school system may have greater needs than that of Blue City. parson City may have more young people, for example, and thus have more students. In that event, the fact that Blue City does not need to educate so many students does not imply that it cares less about educating its students. It could mean the school system is smaller, not less important. The second factor to consider is that the government of Blue City may simply have less tax revenue to begin with. Both cities have equal populations, but parson City may be richer, or may levy stiffer taxes. The real question of how important the public school system is to a city may be measured by the proportion of the budget spent on the public school system. If parson Citys budget is twice as large as Blue Citys, then the two cities can be said to spend equal percentages of their budgets on educationand thus they care equally. Finally, the existing conditions of the school system in each city may differ. If parson Citys schools are in terrible condition, and Blue Citys are pristine, then it is totally logical that parson City would pay more to renovate them. This does not indicate that parson City residents care more about education; it means that their school system simply needs more money. In sum, the argument is disastrously weak. A variety of factors, including the number of public school students in each town, the relative wealth of each town, an existing school conditions must be considered before we understand the reason parson City pays more for its system than Blue City. A lack of care about the school system is one possible explanation for the school spending difference between the two cities, but it is by no means the only one.
在这场争论中，作者笔记预算之间的差异两个城市中的特里哈文区到认为，居民的的资金不市，蓝色城市，在乎公立学校教育比更好的资助parson市城市居民。仔细检查发现，论点忽视了各种因素的影响，证明这种假设完全不健全。随着争论的主要问题是，我们不能假定，因为牧师的城市居民支付更多，它更关心。我们必须考虑的第一个因素是牧师市学校系统可能比蓝色城市更大需求。parson市可以有更多的年轻人，，从而有更多的学生。在这一事件中，蓝色的城市并不需要教育这么多的学生并不意味着它不关心教育它的学生。它可能意味着学校系统是更小的，不那么重要。其次考虑的因素是，蓝色城市的政府可能会有更少的税收来开始。这两个城市都有相等的人群，但parson市可能更丰富，或可能更严厉的税收征收。公共学校系统对一个城市的重要性的真正问题是：在公立学校系统中所用的预算所占的比例是多少。如果帕森市预算的两倍蓝色城市的一样大，然后两个城市可以说相当比例的预算花在教育和因此他们在乎一样。最后，学校制度在每个城市的现有条件可能会有所不同。如果帕森城的学校在可怕的条件，并蓝色城市是质朴的，那么它是完全合乎逻辑的，parson市会更加的改造他们。这并不表明牧师的城市居民更关心教育；这意味着他们的学校系统，只是需要更多的钱。总之，争论是极弱。一个多种因素，包括每个镇在公立学校的学生的数量，的相对财富各乡镇，现有办学条件必须考虑之前，我们理解的原因parson市支付更多的系统比蓝色城市。学校制度的缺失是一个可能的解释，这是因为学校的支出差距在城市之间，但这不是唯一的一个。