GMAT AWA: Argument

The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine on lifestyles.
"Two years ago, City L was listed 14th in an annual survey that ranks cities according to the quality of life that can be enjoyed by those living in them. This information will enable people who are moving to the state in which City L is located to confidently identify one place, at least, where schools are good, housing is affordable, people are friendly, the environment is safe, and the arts flourish."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew's Writing:

The faulty this article makes is obvious in several perspectives. First, it makes a faulty analogy fallacy by comparing 2 different time, two years ago and now, and by comparing 2 different places, City L and the whole state. Second, the quality of life includes something more than just the quality of school, the price of housing the friendliness of people, the safety of enviorment, and the prevailing of arts. In the following analysis, I would like to provide more evidence to demonstrate the two points i just mentioned.

First of all, the article assumes 2 different time and 2 different places without any evidence to remain the same. The survey 2 years ago ranked City L as 14th place in quality of life. This survey, however, reflects only the situation at that time. The quality of life could improve far better during these 2 years. Who knows City L would not be the best place to live now ? The survey also fails to mention how many cities were compared in this survey. Is the rankings including the cities all over the world ? or only in the state in which City L is located ? Those information will make "14th place" more meaningful. Moreover, City L can not represent the whole state in which City L is located. The quality for City L could be an exceptional situation. This kind of comparison commit the faluty of generaliztion, since we don't know whether City L is representative enough.

In addition to the analogy fallacy, another thing we need to consider is what the index of quality of life is. What are the evaluation standards ? by whom ? an authoritative organization ? The survey perhaps includes hundreds of items to evaluate in deciding the qulaity of a city. While City L fails several other standards in this assessment, it is probably reputed for its good schools, afforadable housing, friendly people, safe enviroment and flourished arts. It is wiser to examine each of its assessment, rather than to judge by the overall rank.

In sum, we expect to review an updated survey rather than a two-year-ago one. What we can get from the information the article provides is limited in deciding the quality of City L, not to mention in deciding the cities of the whole state.