Arg-37
题目：
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 a large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway for use as an industrial area. 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."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
范文：
The planning department for the city of Transopolis recommends, as part of its urban renewal plan, that the city convert a troubled residential area into an industrial park and relocate residents from that area to nearby unoccupied housing. To support this recommendation, the planners point out that ten years ago the city converted an area of substandard housing on the other side of town, near a freeway, for industrial use, and that afterwards the area's crime rate declined while the city's overall property-tax revenue increased. While the recommendation is a sensible one, the argument itself needs to be further developed
To begin with, the recommendation relies on two assumptions about the effects of the freeway-area conversion. One such assumption is that the freeway-area conversion caused the decline in that area's crime rate. The mere fact that the conversion occurred just prior to the decline does not sufficiently link the decline in crime to the development. It is possible, for example, that ramped up efforts on behalf of the local police got the riff-raff off the streets. However, common sense dictates that when you remove the criminals from troubled urban areas, the crime rate declines. The author of the argument needs to establish that link more effectively.
Another such assumption is that the increase in overall property-tax revenue indicates an increase in tax revenue from properties in the freeway area. Perhaps property-tax revenue from the converted properties remained the same, or even declined, after the conversion, and that the city's overall property-tax revenue increase was attributable to properties located elsewhere in the city. For that matter, perhaps the city raised its property-tax rates shortly after the conversion. In short, without ruling out alternative explanations for the developments that came after the freeway-area conversion, the planners cannot convince me that the conversion was responsible for those developments. However, common sense dictates that with industrial development, economic development follows. The author of the argument needs to establish that link more effectively.
While considering these two assumptions, one needs to consider that even if these links can be drawn, the recommendation is based on a more troubling assumption: that the proposed conversion would carry the same results as the freeway-area conversion. To consider the recommendation, one needs to pay closer attention to the key differences between the two areas that might undermine the comparison. For example, perhaps the properties surrounding the ones converted in the freeway area were not residential. Common sense dictates that occurrences of crime are less likely to occur in areas where few low class people reside. Since at least some nearby housing is available for residents displaced by the proposed conversion, this conversion might not result in any significant decline in the area's crime rate. At the same time, unless unoccupied nearby housing can accommodate all displaced residents, the conversion might create a homelessness problem, thereby undermining the city's objectives.
Finally, the recommendation assumes that all conditions serving to the first residential to-industrial conversion’s success still exist and would help renew Transopolis. Perhaps Transopolis would have more trouble finding occupants for additional industrial buildings today than it did ten years ago owing to regional and national economic changes, demographic shifts, and political influences.
In sum, the planners' recommendation, while sound, requires further substantiation. To bolster the argument, the author must provide clear evidence that the freeway-area conversion contributed to the decline in that area's crime rate and to the city's overall property-tax revenue increase. To better assess the argument an audience would need to know what other changes have occurred in the city that might effect the overall outcome of the new project.
