argument evidence

In this argument the author employs a variety of evidence about the function of the part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, to argue that the action they take could attain the same objective as before. We may accept part of the author’s claim regard ing the action, but in the absence of some critical evidence, we cannot accept the conclusion that they should take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite of the city.

In the first place, the author assumes that if they take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite of the city, the city could revitalize in the new future. However the author is treating a lack of proof that whether () are similar enough at every aspect and are indeed comparable. While it is true that () share some common grounds on some aspects. There are still some obvious differences between them, such as their geographical isolation, financial situation, population and so on. Many differences exist between () and these differences may render the actions which are proved to be effective for B ineffective for A. Before copying the experience, the author should take these differences into account and make careful study on the comparability of the two places.

Granted that the two places are indeed comparable, we still need evidence to prove that whether the renewal program leads to the increasing of the property tax revenues for the entire city. Many other financial factors could result in the increasing of the property tax revenues. Besides, it is a occasional event possibly.

Assuming that the action contributed to the increasing of the property tax revenues and the declining of the crime rates, there is a possibility that people who displaced by this action could not afford the housing price or rent of nearby neighborhoods. Furthermore, even there are some unoccupied houses and apartments in existing neighboring neighborhoods, it is unnecessary for them to rent or sell their houses and apartments for those displaced by the action. Also possibly, the program was conducted ten years ago, so the result could not represent the current or future conditions. The effectiveness of the program cited as main evidence is open to doubt, the author needs to provide evidence that every factor toward the program has not changed greatly during the ten years. Many factors that could influence the validity of the program will change in the future, so the result of the survey could not represent the all-time situation. We still cannot rule out the possibility that the action may not revitalize the city without such information.

In sum, the conclusion is hastily reached. Before the claim that the city should take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city, the author should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.