Hello
Sajjad1994, can you please review my essay for the same prompt?
The argument suggests that by issuing many more residential building permits through relaxation of regulations governing all construction, regional governments can end a local economic downturn since the local unemployment rate decreases and economic production increases when the monthly number of residential building permits issued rises consistently for a few months. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and flawed.
First, the argument readily assumes that relaxed regulations will automatically lead to increased issuance of residential building permits. This statement is a stretch. For example, there might be several factors that need to be considered while issuing a residential building permit such as safety of the neighborhood, undisrupted availability of gas, water, and electric resources, safety of the building and so forth. Clearly, relaxed regulations, which might in fact lead to a detrimental outcome such as unsafe building structure or unavailability of resources or construction in unsafe neighborhood, need not necessarily imply increased residential occupation and therefore end of local economic downturn. The argument could have been much clearer if it had considered all of the other factors instrumental in issuing residential building permits.
Second, the argument claims that increase in residential permits causes decrease in unemployment rates and increase in economic production. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between increased residential permits and decreased unemployment rates or increased economic production. To illustrate, the reverse might well be true. That is, an increase in economic production and decrease in unemployment rate, might possibly cause an increase in residential occupation of the locality and therefore an increase in residential permits issued. Beyond residential permits, job providing industries are necessary to reduce unemployment and increase economic production. If the argument provided evidence that residential permits are directly correlated with decreased unemployment rates, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, has the author of the argument considered other localities where the regional governments were successful in the implementation of relaxed regulations? Also, has the author considered relaxing regulations for industries which would actually create jobs, improve economic production, and bring in more residents? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with an impression that the claim is more wishful thinking than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of the recommendation of relaxing construction regulations, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors such as availability of industries and ease of living in the neighborhood. Without this information, the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate.
close
22 Sep 2021, 02:50
