▶ Your Answer :
Reporting
the concerns about overdevelopment in Maple County, the council argued that
they need to pass a law to restrict further development, which, based on their
predictions, will increase housing prices in the county. However, this
arguments and predicted results rely on a series of unproven assumptions;
therefore, diverse aspects need to be scrutinized to make an informed and
reasonable decision.
To
begin with, the fact that Maple county is overdeveloped should be supported by
clearer evidence since the assumption is the backbone of this argument, but is
absent in the statement. To what extent do the council assess Maple city overdeveloped?
Is it related to too much factories, abundantly manufactured cars, or overly
built houses? We just do not know. Accordingly, the argument about restricting “Farmland”
is not plausible because the area of overdevelopment was not clearly
identified; it might be downtown area only or beach sides. Thus, why and how
the council assess Maple city’s overdevelopment must be discussed.
Even
though assuming that the assessment about overdevelopment and preventing the
farmland area are substantiated, the reasons about Pine County’s real estate
price changes must be scrutinized. Since the legislators believe that Maple
city’s land price will follow the Pine County’s case, they must analyze the
triggering variables on the land prices in Pine County. The council assumed
that the reason was the restriction policy; however, they overlook other
possible causes. Perhaps the price in Pine City soared simply due to increased
number of moving in. Or perhaps the house numbers unexpectedly decreased caused
by unexpected incidents, e.g., earth quake, typhoon, or tornado. Thus, in Pine
County’s case, the independent and dependent variables with regard to the land
prices must be clearly researched with plausible corroborations.
Lastly,
the Chestnut count’s case shows that the restriction has not caused high degree
of increasing of land prices. This case tells the council that the policy preventing
development may not be the main reason for land prices’ fluctuations.
Therefore, the following question also needs to be checked carefully: why do
land prices in Chestnut show stable change?
One
might say that restricting a certain amount of lands can attribute to
skyrocketing of land prices. According to the demand and supply principle, this
assumption might be true. Nonetheless, there should be various interrelating aspects
that can influence the prices including the numbers of people or unexpected
natural disasters as stated above, or other unstudied reasons just like in
Chestnut County.
In
sum, the stated argument and predictions are not plausible as they stand because
the argument relies on what might amount to scant evidence. In order to evaluate
the argument more clearly, more empirical evidence for the following topics
should be provided: why and how the council assessed the over development in
Maple County, what triggering variables are in Pine County, and why the land
prices in Chestnut has been showing stable fluctuations.
|