The council of Maple County concerned about the county s becoming overdeveloped is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county But the council is also concerned that such a restriction by limiting the

The argument is stating a problem in the council of Maple County. They are debating a proposed measure to prevent the developing of existing farmlands in that area. Then the author discusses two reasons which proponents and the opponents of the debating issue are concerned about based on two other city's experiences. This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the argument fails to substantiate this crucial assumption that the Maple County has to enforce this debating measure. We are not aware of the rate of increase in the existing farms of the area and the argument provides no evidence why such a restriction is necessary. In addition the author, give us no further information about the contents of that restrictions and the debating measure. This assumption has made the argument vulnerable to criticism.

Secondly, a threshold assumption which the argument relies on is that Chestnut County has established a similar measure ten years ago and its housing price has increased only modestly, and therefore it will have the same result in the Maple County too. This premise is not credible, since this method had been used in that area ten years ago, and many financial and economical conditions may have been different from now. Also the argument should have mentioned that what other methods have the Chestnut County has done to control the prices. They might have done additional price control strategies that are not stated in the argument.

Finally the opponents of the restrictions have also this crucial assumption that they can compare Maple county's conditions with Pine County, which has done these restrictions fifteen years ago and experienced a contradictory situation from that of the Chestnut County. Again, we cannot compare the conditions in fifteen years ago with the present time, unless it had been mentioned in the argument that the key factors has remained similar. Also we cannot compare the conditions of another area with the Maple County unless there were notifications to indicate that these two areas are comparable in different aspects. There are many reasons which can lead to an increase in the land price in a region and these restrictions can be only one of them.

In conclusion, the author lends little credible support to his argument. To bolster it, the author should provide us with more evidence about the current problems in the county and prove that something should be done to impede the developing in the Maple County. Then it should provide more information about the conditions of those two counties that have experienced these restrictions and indicate that these counties are comparable with Maple County. The author can also reinforce his argument by providing other county's experiences of establishing these restrictions to help the readers better predict the result of passing this measure.