A district officer's note reads: 'Since the night shelter was opened in the old grain market in November, more of the town's homeless sleep under a roof than slept under one before. The town's want of shelter is therefore met.' The note's reasoning is most open to criticism because it

The evidence establishes an increase and the conclusion asserts sufficiency, and the second is a great deal more than the first will carry: a town with nine hundred homeless and a shelter holding forty has more people under a roof than before and eight hundred and sixty still without one. The note has proved a weaker thing than it announces. Who built the shelter is a fact about its origin and touches neither the count nor the want. The second option attacks a claim the note never makes — the note says the want is met, not that the shelter met it, and the note would stand or fall the same way whoever housed those people. The fourth speaks to whether the improvement will last, which is a different question from whether the improvement, while it lasts, is enough.