GRE Argument Topic 35

Sample 1:

Before moving forward with plans to develop an additional part of the city, planners should consider the real benefits of doing so. They should look for evidence to support the claims of reduced crime and increased tax revenues along with evidence of a need for more development. The current owners of the land and buildings or the contractors who complete the work may be the only beneficiaries.

The planning committee reports a reduction in crime because of the previous urban renewal project. That might be expected in an area that is now devoted to factories. The committee needs evidence that crime has not simply been moved to another part of the city along with the residents. Simply displacing crime is not a justification for further development. Is there evidence of significant crime in the location proposed for the new development? If not, that rationale won't fly. Moving crime to a different part of the city does not makes residents safer or save the city any money.

The planners may be living with a field of Dreams mentality: if we build it, they will come. Does the city have manufacturers clamoring for space in Transopolis? If the city buys out the residents of the area and erects buildings on speculation, it may find itself a landlord of empty buildings with a sizable budget deficit. The taxpayers should demand to know that there is a guaranteed return on their investment. Otherwise, this development could wipe out any extra revenues from the previous urban renewal. Evidence is needed to support the choice of location for the new revitalization effort. The planner proposes moving residents of the declining neighborhood to nearby neighborhoods where some houses and apartments are unoccupied. Further research may demonstrate that it would be more fiscally and humanely sound to place the new development where residences are already unoccupied. There is too little evidence in this passage to show that one location has advantages over the other.

The city needs evidence of easy access to the proposed location. The original site is near the freeway, providing a means for workers and commercial vehicles to get there. Located on the opposite side of the city, the proposed site may require building new or widening existing roads. The result could be additional displacement of Transopolis citizens and/ or a reduction in property values.

All stakeholders of the city should complete more investigation of this proposal of the planning department before giving a green signal. It would be easy to get on board with the planning department considering the previous successes. However, Transopolis may have completed all the development that it can presently handle or needs.

Sample 2:

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.