The planning department has recommended that the opposite side of the city be industrialized in order to rejuvenate the city. The department reaches this conclusion based on the success of comprehensive urban renewal program in a large area of substandard housing near the freeway. The department also cites the availability of unoccupied houses and apartments in the opposite side of the city to corroborate its argument. However, the assertion is rife with holes and assumptions. If the department hopes to increase its persuasiveness it would have to support its assumptions with verifiable evidence.

Firstly, while stating that the crime rate in the area has decreased, the department assumes that the criminals in the area near the freeway have not migrated to some other area of the city. Yet, the department provides no further evidence to warrant this supposition. Perhaps the criminals originally operating in that area have now migrated to a well settled neighborhood, causing even bigger troubles there. Maybe criminals only performing minor crimes in the area of substandard housing have now resorted to major crimes in the new area. The displacement of people from those areas by industries might have caused even the civilized, hard-working people of the area to resort to crime in some other areas for their sustenance, hence increasing the total crime rate in the city. Thus, unless the department provides additional evidence regarding the status of those criminals now, its recommendation cannot be properly evaluated.
Moreover, even if the result obtained in that area was properly supported with facts, the department goes on to assume that this result would be replicated in the opposite side of the city without any support. In doing so, the department completely disregards the possibility of cultural, geographical, and infrastructural differences between the two areas. It is possible that the opposite side of city is so poor infrastructurally that it cannot support any new industries. It might require additional road structures and storage sites, which would be very expensive for the city to build. Perhaps the people in this area are culturally attached to it and will cause the revolt rather than move. So, if any of such scenarios prove to be true, the department’s contention is highly weakened.

Also, the author assumes that the availability of unoccupied homes will serve to resettle the displaced residents of the opposite side of the city. However, this might not be correct. The homeowners may have temporarily migrated because of cold in the winter and may return back soon. It is also possible that the homeowners will not agree to sell or rent the place because of their cultural relationship with the place. Also, the department provides no information on the number of unoccupied homes and the number of people that could be displaced. So, it cannot be verified that the unoccupied homes will support all of the displaced population. Hence, if the department wishes to strengthen its contention, it must provide more information on those unoccupied homes and the number of people that might be displaced.

To conclude, while the department’s recommendation might still hold water, it is based on some unwarranted assumptions, which undermine its validity. Thus, the department must provide additional evidence before their recommendation can be adequately assessed. If they are able to do so, the city may be able to rejuvenate further

Tomorrow is my G-day. So could anyone please help me by rating this asap. Thank youu!