Ten years ago as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway Subsequently several factories were constructed there crime rates in the area d

The author of the statement above believes that the strategy of the city of Transpolis which adapted for industrial use a large area, has brought successful results for the town. Based on such a premise, the author concludes that using the same strategy in the opposite part of the town would have the same beneficial consequences for the city. However, the argument lacks several vital evidence to support the author’s conclusion.

First, the author needs evidence that during the past decade, it was exclusively the shift of the residential area toward the industrial use that has led to several advantages for the town. Among the advantages are: a decreased crime rate and an increase in the tax incomes. The reduction in the crime rate might be due to measures taken by the police to curb the crimes as much as they could, not the change the practice of that area of that town. Furthermore, the increase of the tax revenues might have other reasons. For instance, a surge of tourists might have come to the town to have fun in the hotels made during the past decade. The author needs to rule out any alternative explanation competing against with his/her own conclusion.

Secondly, even if the success is just due to industrial use of the area, the author needs to provide evidence that the same plan would work on the opposite side of the town. It is possible that the success of the first industrialization was due to the lack of any primary industrial part of the town. Therefore the industries had no other places to establish themselves so they occupied the area. The secondary area might not see the same trend and be occupied with a significant number of industries as there is already a place for them. Even if industries come, they are prone to make pollution. Their establishment in the new part might inundate the government with many complaints and protestations.

Speaking of the complaints and inconvenience, finally, the author needs to provide evidence that people would agree to be displaced from their homes to other places. It is totally possible that people disagree with such a change and do not cooperate to change their home. If this is the case, then what happens in the reality might not comply with the author’s conclusion. Furthermore, even people agree with this act, the author needs evidence showing that the unoccupied homes are enough for the people who are going to change their place. It is possible that “some unoccupied homes” are not enough to accommodate the population supposed to be displaced.

In short, as discussed, the argument lacks the several vital evidence enumerated above. The author’s argument is not supported by the necessary evidences and therefore the conclusion cannot be tenable.