Passage Summary: An editorial claims it is a scandal that the city hired a contractor because most of its workers don't have a specific professional certificate, making them 'unqualified.'

Conclusion: The city is wrong to have hired a contractor whose workforce is sixty percent unqualified.

Reasoning: Only forty percent of the technicians at the chosen company are certified by the Heating Technicians Association.

Analysis: The author is making a massive leap by equating 'not certified by the HTA' with being 'unqualified.' This argument relies on a narrow definition of competence that excludes experience, other certifications, or on-the-job training. To bridge this gap, the argument requires a necessary assumption that the HTA certification is the only valid measure of qualification. If a technician could be qualified without that specific piece of paper, the author's 'outrage' loses its logical foundation.