Argument essay 2

“For the past century, an increase in the number of residential building permits issued per month in a particular region has been a reliable indicator of coming improvements to that region’s economy. If the monthly number of residential building permits issued rises consistently for a few months, the local unemployment rate almost always falls and economic production increases. This well-established connection reveals an effective method by which a regional government can end a local economic downturn: relax regulations governing all construction so that many more building permits can be issued.”

The argument claims that by relaxing regulations governing all construction will lead to the increase in building permits which indirectly lead to the region's economy. The argument failed to mention several key factors on the basis of which, it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there are no clear evidences. Hence, the conclusion is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that an increase in the residential building permits will bring improvements to that region's economy. The argument is stretch and lacks evidence. The premises does not provide the clear relations between an increase in the region's economy and residential building permit's. It may be possible that due to the increase in the population or migrants in the region had improved the economy as well as increased the demand of more residential building permits. The argument would be more clearer if the author has provided the relevant relationship between the above.

Secondly, the argument claims that if the increase in residential permits rises consistently than it will reduce the unemployment rate and increase in the economic production. The argument is again weak and unsupported. The argument does not demonstrate the correlation between increase in permits and unemployment rate. To illustrate, increase in permits will lead to the less space left out for corporate and industries to operate on which will lead to less number of job and increase in unemployment rate. Also author has not provided the clear reasons or factors related to unemployment rate and economic productions. The statement will be more convincing, if the author has provided the relevant factors as mentioned above.

Finally, the argument assumes that relaxing regulations governing all construction will increase the demand in the building permits. The argument misses few important questions such as Relaxing regulations will not hamper the quality of the constructions company? Is it applicable only for residential building or for all? If for all then how the increase in other sort of building effecting the employment rate and economic productions? Without the convincing answer to these questions, the argument is left with impression of author's wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. Without these information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.