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

Essay topics:

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 supply of new housing, could lead to significant increases in the price of housing in the county. Proponents of the measure note that Chestnut County established a similar measure ten years ago, and its housing prices have increased only modestly since. However, opponents of the measure note that Pine County adopted restrictions on the development of new residential housing fifteen years ago, and its housing prices have since more than doubled. The council currently predicts that the proposed measure, if passed, will result in a significant increase in housing prices in Maple County.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.

The measure mentioned in the argument is confusing regarding the restrictions on existing farmland and limiting the supply of new housing. In addition, the two references of Chestnut County and Pine County bears little connection to Maple County due to the particular time range and conditions. Therefore, just based on the argument, the prediction that the housing prices will increase tremendously is not convincing.

The prediction regarding the housing prices is based on the measure used to prevent the County from overdeveloping. Consequently, in order to evaluate the prediction, the measure and restrictions need to be evaluated first. According to the argument, the council think to stop the county from overdevelopment, existing farmland has to be stopped from developing, which will moreover be accomplished by limiting the supply of new housing. The logic is confusing. To help with the evaluation, the first question that needs to be answered is what causes the County to be overdeveloped? If the answers are not because of the expansion of farmland; rather, it is because that the number of industries or public transit facilities has substantially increased, this way the whole argument and prediction is invalid in the first place.

To continue with the evaluation, hypothetically, the expansion of the farmland is the reason. the second question is will the restrictions on the supply of new housing help achieve the goal of preventing the further development of the existing farmland? If the answer is positive, it implies the expansion of the farmland is mainly because that when people buy new houses, they will likely develop their farmland as well, so in order to stop them from farming, stop selling new houses. On the other hand, if the expansion of the farmland is primarily caused by building on the top of the original farmland by the current households, limiting the supply of new housing will not help with preventing the existing farmland from developing. Subsequently, for the purpose of preventing the overdevelopment of the existing farmland and the county, limiting the supply of the housing is invalid, nor is the prediction.

Additionally, the council made the prediction referring to the results of Chestnut County and Pine County. Again, hypothetically limiting the supply of new housing is valid, the prediction is still not convincing at all. To help evaluate, the question needed to be answered is how did they come up with the prediction that the pricing will greatly increase based the two contrasted references? First, both of these two Counties set motion the restrictions about a decade ago, which is too long to have much value of referring. Second, both counties had their particular conditions for their restrictions to result in the current housing situation. The specific conditions that Maple County has could be completely different with both of them. Therefore, no explanation is given to verify the council’s prediction.

In conclusion, through the process of answering some critical questions, we can reasonably say that neither the argument nor the prediction is convincing.

Votes
Average: 5 (2 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2020-01-29 jenniferjack07 82 view
2020-01-23 jason123 16 view
2019-12-19 samramjam12345 50 view
2019-12-12 nimesh94 55 view
2019-11-25 cnegus 63 view
Essay Categories
Essays by user Phoebe :

Comments

argument 1 -- not OK. here 'overdeveloped' means 'in existing farmland in the county'

argument 2 -- not OK. here is 'by limiting the supply of new housing'. It is not related to where to build houses

argument 3 -- OK
--------------------
Let's analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:

condition 1:
Proponents of the measure note that Chestnut County established a similar measure ten years ago, and its housing prices have increased only modestly since. //maybe Chestnut County is not a financially developed city

condition 2:
However, opponents of the measure note that Pine County adopted restrictions on the development of new residential housing fifteen years ago, and its housing prices have since more than doubled. //it works in A, doesn't mean it will work in B.

conclusion:
The council currently predicts that the proposed measure, if passed, will result in a significant increase in housing prices in Maple County. //not really, maybe people move out of the city in the future.

--------------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 498 350
No. of Characters: 2575 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.724 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.171 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.958 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 199 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 161 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 123 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 76 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.282 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.762 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.339 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.53 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.138 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5