The average price of an acre of land in the United States is

Please rate my essay
-------------------------------------

The following appeared in the personal finance section of a popular magazine:

“The average price of an acre of land in the United States is now 50 times what it was in 1970, and nearly 200 times what it was in 1920. The nation’s population is projected to keep increasing, even as the amount of land remains constant. Therefore, people who are approaching retirement should invest heavily in real estate in order to ensure their financial security.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument suggests that people approaching retirement should invest more in real estate from a financial security standpoint. This is based on the premise that the average price of US land has increased from 1920 to now, and population of country is projected to increase, even as the amount of land remains the same. Not only is this line of reasoning flawed, but the argument also makes several uncorroborated assumptions that must be addressed.

Firstly, the argument fails to acknowledge the change in the value of currency from 1920 to current. If the purchasing power of dollar has decreased over the years, i.e. the amount of goods and service that can be purchased with $1 has only reduced over the years, the apparent increase in real estate prices is inflated and superficial. Secondly, since the argument only mentions the average of the price of an acre of land, it also unclear if the amount of land has remained unchanged during this period of time. What if the amount of land available has decreased over time, causing the prices to rise? Moreover, what if the increase in prices is not proportional throughout the country? Maybe only a few urban cities have reported a significant increase in real estate prices, while most of the properties lie in the suburban or rural areas, which have reported little to no change in prices.

In addition to the average price, the argument does not mention any other factor that could influence the value of land, for instance location of the property, weather conditions or accessibility of comfortable means of transport.

Lastly, the argument cites projected population rise as another reason for people to invest in real estate. Even if the population is expected to increase, the argument provides no further evidence to support how population is correlated to real estate and how an increase in population in future could impact the value of real estate in the country.

As explained in the above lines, the argument as it stands, hold little ground for contextual questioning. Without performing a proper assessment of real-estate value, based on well-rounded factors, the conclusion is a poor financial suggestion

Good Luck

Sajjad1994 please help me review my essay, thanks!

The argument in the personal finance section of the popular magazine details that the average price of an acre of land in the U.S. is now 50 times and 200 times what it was in 1920 and 1970 respectively. The argument therefore concludes that people who are approaching retirement should invest heavily in real estate in order to ensure their financial security because the nation's population is projected to increase while the amount of land remains constant. This argument is however flawed because it relies on several assumptions and because it fails to consider other key factors necessary in reaching its conclusion.

First, the argument is flawed because it establishes a weak relationship between the premise of an increase in population coupled with constant land availability and the conclusion of prospective retirees investing in real estate. The argument seems to suggest that as population grows, causing an increase in demand for land, while the supply of land remains constant, prices of land will increase, making real estate a favourable investment opportunity. However, the argument does not state this clearly and leaves the reader to extrapolate the connection between the premise and the conclusion, weakening the argument significantly. The argument could be made clearer by showing how an increase in population and effect the forces of demand and supply on land can make an investment in real estate favourable for retirees.

In addition, the argument is flawed because it assumes that the rise in price of land is constant and that there is never a sharp decline in land prices. This assumption leads the argument to conclude that investment in real estate will ensure financial security for investors. However, this assumption is invalid because investments that are always profitable in every circumstance are anomalies and simply do not exist. Therefore, the suggestion of heavily investing in real estate that the argument makes to prospective retirees is unwise. If there is a significant market crash such as that of 2008 market crisis, people who invested heavily in real estate will have severe financial consequences. Furthermore, the recommendation of investing "heavily" is unwise because investors are recommended to diversify their portfolios and diversify their risk as investing heavily in a market will expose them to significant risk. The argument could be strengthened by removing the word "heavily", because while real estate might be a profitable investment, putting all or most of ones eggs into a single basket is highly risky.

Lastly, the argument is flawed because it uses the blanket term of "real estate" to refer specifically to a component of real estate which: land. The argument provides information about land but makes a conclusion on real estate which includes other investments asides land. The argument could be made more cogent by showing that similar trends in the price of land are seen in other types of real estate such as buildings.

The argument is flawed because of the aforementioned reasons. It relies on several unsupported assumptions to arrive at an unconvincing conclusion. The argument could be made stronger by corroborating its assumptions and by examining other key factors that could influence its conclusion. However, because the argument fails to do so, it is flawed and open to debate.