Maheshkv The reasoning is:
The plan to build a new merchant quarter in the city of Istanbul will surely contribute towards reestablishing the city as the central trading hub it used to be in the past. Though
a certain part of the ancient wall will have to be removed as part of the project, the project will, if it meets the analysts' predictions, raise the GNP (Gross National Product) by over 10% over the first four years following its completion.
The past cannot be allowed to hold back the future.Conclusion is: The past cannot be allowed to hold back the future.
Why: Because everything else supports this statement. If you were to ask the author "Why the past cannot be allowed to hold back the future?"
Then he would say because:
(1) The plan to build a new merchant quarter in the city of Istanbul will surely contribute towards reestablishing the city as the central trading hub it used to be in the past.
(2) The project will, if it meets the analysts' predictions, raise the GNP (Gross National Product) by over 10% over the first four years following its completion.
This statement "
a certain part of the ancient wall will have to be removed as part of the project" goes against his main position because "
the ancient wall" could hold some value for some people and they might be against its removal. So by acknowledging this fact, the author has removed one possible objection to his position. The presence of "
though" shows contrast. According to the author, keeping the wall will be less beneficial for the city than its removal.
I hope it helps.