The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis."Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substanda

The writer argues that in order to revamp the city further, the area of declining residential houses must be adapted for the industrial use. It is based on the premises that similar action in opposite side of the city had led to the establishment of factories, reduction in crime rates, surge in property tax and the residents that are currently living in the houses that would be cleared for the industrial house would be accommodated in the unoccupied houses that are available on nearby neighbourhood. The argument seems true at first sight, however, on deeper analysis it becomes clear that certain relevant aspects have not been taken into account, leading to a number of unverified evidences and logical flaws.

First such unverified evidence is the analogy between the outcomes achieved 10 years ago and the outcome that are to be expected to come in the future. However, there may be the case that conditions which were conducive 10 years ago are not present today which would make the argument unreliable. For instance, the conditions of the city 10 years ago was such that there were no industries despite the city being in the proximity to the sea. The industries were established because industries were export intensive and senior management of these industries opined that establishing a unit near to the sea would reduce the costs in transporting the goods from land to the ports. But the conditions are today such that the opposite side is very far from the sea and the establishment of industries may not happen because this would increase the costs of transportation for them. Therefore, in order to make the argument more reliable, the writer should collect the evidences from the research study on what prompted the industries to establish their presence then and should also demonstrate that the conducive conditions for business are present in the opposite side of the city as well.

Secondly, the writer’s argument is incorrectly based on the unverified evidence of sample of people that are willing to relocate to the new houses. However, it is possible that these residents object to the idea of relocation or the number of unoccupied houses are fewer to accommodate all these people which would make the argument irrelevant. This can be exemplified by the desire of these people to continue to live in their existing location because from this location the distance to the city where these people go for work is less or all modes of transportation is available from their homes to their offices. But from the proposed location, even the road is not well paved which would make their travel unpleasant. Therefore, in order to make the argument more valid, the writer should assemble the evidences from the sample survey of these resident to know their willingness and should also prove that they are inclined to move to a new location without objections or protest.

Finally, the writer has assumed arbitrarily the analogy between establishment of factories and increase in taxes. However, there may be important reason that taxes had increased for other reasons except these factories which would make the argument significantly weak. This can be illustrated by that authorities increased the tax rates in order to compensate the losses made to the natural resources such as clearing of forests for the industrial land and damaging the environment by releasing the discharge in the nearby rivers by these industries. But at the proposed location, no such natural resources are present which may hinder the authorities to raise taxes. Therefore, in order to overcome this flaw, the writer should compile evidences from the authorities on the factors contributed to increase in taxes and should assert that same factors are also available in the proposed location.

After close examination of the argument presented, it is apparent that the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on certain unverified evidences. The recommendations in the above paragraphs show how this argument may be strengthened and made more logically sound in order to evaluate the viability of the proposed measure.