The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

“During her three years in office, Governor Riedeburg has shown herself to be a worthy leader. Since she took office, crime has decreased, the number of jobs created per year has doubled, and the number of people choosing to live in our state has increased. These trends are likely to continue if she is reelected. In addition, Ms. Riedeburg has promised to take steps to keep big companies here, thereby providing jobs for any new residents. Anyone who looks at Ms. Riedeburg’s record can tell that she is the best-qualified candidate for governor.”

The above letter appeared in the local newspaper and the arguer through it wants to prove that Ms Riedeburg is the most suitable candidate for the post of governor. To make his stand more convincing the arguer has given various arguments. The first argument which proves the worth of Ms Riedeburg as a governor is that since the time she has joined the office there has been quite a decrease in the crime rate. There has been considerable increase in the jobs and the number of people moving in the state. The second argument which the arguer gives is that if Ms Riedeburg is reelected as the governor then the same trend would continue and she has also promised to provide more jobs for the new residents by keeping big companies in the city. Both the arguments given by the arguer fail to prove the worth of Ms. Riedeburg.

The first argument presented for proving the worth of Ms. Riedeburg is absolutely insignificant. There is no direct relation between decreasing crime rate and her being the governor. The decrease in crime rate could be due to better awareness in the citizens and thus adoption of more security measures by them. Also during the time of the previous governor various measures could have been taken to control the crime and most criminals could have been imprisoned. The increase in the number of jobs could have been due to the expansion of the industries or setting up of new industries. The arguer has not mentioned that she proposed any new setup or expansion of any industry so how could she have generated more jobs? It is also not mentioned by the arguer that she appointed new security staff or took special measures to hinder crime. The number of people choosing to live in the city could have increased due to fall in real estate prices or more job options and not because Ms. Riedeburg was the governor.

The second argument which the arguer gives in support of his stand that in case Ms. Riedeburg is reelected then the same trend would continue is absolutely vague. The possibility of generating more job options is very limited as she can not create jobs and also the crime has already diminished. The arguer says that she would keep the big companies which would create jobs for new residents is also vague as the established companies would not require so much manpower that it would accommodate all the new residents shifting in the city.

In all the arguments the arguer is unable to make his stand strong to reelect Ms. Reideburg as the governor of the city. Also she might have worked to the best of her ability and the new governor who comes would come with new ideas and measures for the betterment of the city. The arguer could not give relevant reasons for the reelection of the governor and also to highlight her performance as a good governor.