The cities of East Sacunda and West Sacunda are in an earthquake-prone area. Since 1985 both cities have had stringent building codes requiring all new buildings to have specific features designed to prevent damage in an earthquake. Buildings built before 1985 are exempt from the codes, but many building owners have modified their buildings to make them conform to the 1985 codes. Last year a major earthquake hit the area, and many people lost their homes. The number of people who were left homeless was much higher in East Sacunda than in West Sacunda, however, so we can conclude that building owners in East Sacunda were less likely to modify their buildings so as to bring them up to the 1985 code standards.

The arguer in the above argument is laying stress on the point that not much building owners in East Sacunda have amended their buildings according to the building codes which came into practice since 1985. The arguer presents us with arguments to prove his point. The arguer states that since both the cities East Sacunda and West Sacunda were earthquake prone there were stringent building codes that came into practice which needed to be followed by all the new buildings which were to be constructed after the period of 1985. A major quake hit the cities last year and the numbers of people left homeless were much more in East Sacunda than in West Sacunda. The conclusion made by the arguer is absolutely baseless and without any authentic reasons.

The arguer in the argument states that the building codes came into practice from 1985 and after that the arguer has not mentioned whether there was any major quake before last year. This means that probably people amended their buildings as per the code but seeing that there were not many major quakes after 1985 there might be a possibility that people had become a little carefree in their approach towards amending the buildings. It is very much possible that people preferred making new buildings rather than amending the older ones as amending is a more tedious job.

The arguer further mentions that in a major quake last year more homeless people were from East Sacunda than West Sacunda. The arguer has not mentioned the intensity of the earthquake for both the cities as it is very much possible that both cities had different intensity of the quake measured on the Richter’s scale. There is a probability that the earthquake was more intense in the eastern part of the city and because of this the city saw maximum destruction.

The arguer has not stated anywhere in the argument that the people who were left homeless were all residing in the buildings that were constructed before the period of 1985 and also that those buildings were not amended according to the building codes. It is very much possible that the newly constructed buildings and the buildings amended under the building codes also suffered destruction and also added in making more number of people homeless in the city of East Sacunda.

The arguer is making an allegation on the people of East Sacunda without any proper evidence. The arguer has not presented any evidence which would prove that the people of that city did not follow the building codes and thus suffered maximum destruction. The arguer has nowhere in the argument mentioned about the people who were left homeless in West Sacunda also. This could mean that people in the western part of the city also did not comply with the building codes.

The arguer fails to prove his stand as there is no proper evidence presented by the arguer which proves that the East Sacunda people were less likely to comply with the building codes than the people of West Sacunda.