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 substandard ho

The originator of the recommendation asserts that in order to revive Transopolis a policy which was successfully implemented ten years ago should be repeated. This conclusion is buttressed by evidence which should be carefully scrutinized in order to gauge the soundness of the argument.

First of all, we are told that fulfillment of a thoughtful urban proposal has led to many positive consequences such as decline in crime rates and increase of towns' property tax. However, Is the program only possible factor with positive alteration? Perhaps the town created several incentives which buttressed the local business which were implemented in the right time and place. Moreover, an overall country's economy might be in its best shape and thus business was thriving. Additionally to it, the built mills and plants may satisfy growing demand and thus they have found their place in economy. In other words, other factors which were neglected by the writer may dramatically affect the program's success.

Furthermore, the author of the argument avers that repetition of policy which was fulfilled ten years ago will bring the same results. However, if the area and local and global situations are similar today and ten years ago. we know that a large area which were adapted for industrial use were located near the freeway. Perhaps the area has decent infrastructure, transport new, railway etc. These features make the area suit for the developing manufacturing. But we do not know if the new place has not got the same features, it will not be successful as the author asserts. In other words, the author's assumption that extrapolation of the previous success on the new situation is not warranted.

Besides, the argument claims that local residents who will be displaced by the actions will have adequate housing. However, the author does not mention other features. Does the new housing have schools, kindergartens and hospitals? Likeliness exists that new place for living will not satisfy needs of those who were displaced. Additionally to it, those people may not want to move on. Does the local government force them to go? Consequently, the fact that unoccupied housing exists does not mean that it suits for people and that those residents want to move into the new homes.

In conclusion, the writer of the recommendation proposes to repeat policy which gave a decent result ten years ago. However, the author has failed to prove or properly support his or her viewpoint. Likeliness exists that other unstated factors led to positive result and that the implementation of the policy in new conditions will not have the same benevolent consequences. Thus the argument is weak and unwarranted.