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 housing near the freeway. Subsequently, several factories were constructed there, crime rates in the area declined, and property tax revenues for the entire city increased. To further revitalize the city, we should now take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city. Since some houses and apartments in existing nearby neighborhoods are currently unoccupied, alternate housing for those displaced by this action will be readily available.”

The above article appeared as a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis. The arguer wants to recommend a comprehensive urban renewal program on the opposite side of the city of Transopolis so that a large area of substandard housing be used for industrial purpose. There are various arguments presented by the arguer in support of his stand. The arguments presented by the arguer are that when a comprehensive urban renewal program was adapted in one part of the city, many factories were constructed there, the rate of crime also decreased and there was an increase in the property tax revenue. Additionally the arguer thinks that if a similar program was a success in a part of the city of Transopolis then it would be a success in the other part too.

The arguments presented by the arguer in support of his stand are vague and baseless. The arguer talks of a comprehensive urban renewal program that was adopted ten years ago and after the lapse of a decade how can the same plan work for the other area of the city? As there must have been remarkable changes in the ways of getting development in a city implementing the same program could not yield the same fruitful results as it did ten years ago.

The arguer talks about the declined crime rate and the increased property tax revenue for the entire city. This assumption about how declined crime is related to several factories being constructed is very vague. The fall in crime could have been due to vigilant staff or more imprisonment of the criminals. Additionally the residents must have become more cautious with time or more security personnel must have been placed in the area.

The arguer has mentioned the increase in the property tax for the entire city. The arguer has not mentioned the separate taxes of the different regions of the city. How can the arguer assume that the increase in property tax was due to the contribution of taxes from this area of the city? The arguer has also not mentioned anywhere that increase in property taxes was due to the newly set up factories.

The arguer talks about construction of industries to bring development in the other part of the city but the arguer is forgetting the further consequences of constructing so many industries in the same city. The arguer thinks industrial development is the only way for development but other measures can also be adopted by government for development. If the land on that side of the city is fertile then that could be taken under cultivation or schools or colleges can be constructed. The set up of industries bring in so much of pollution which could be fatal for the people living in the city.

The arguer fails to make his recommendation acceptable. The arguer should present more relevant arguments in support of his stand and must present some new measures as compared to a plan which was adopted ten years ago.