Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway.
-
March 2, 2022 at 9:45 am
Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway. Subsequently, several factories were constructed there, crime rates in the area declined, and property tax revenues for the entire city increased. To further revitalize the city, we should now take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city. Since some houses and apartments in existing nearby neighborhoods are currently unoccupied, alternate housing for those displaced by this action will be readily available.”
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
For the lasting prosperity of Transopolis, a recommendation proposes that a worsening neighbourhood should be rebuilt into an industrial hub, and unoccupied dwellings nearby can be turned into residences for the homeless. This proposal, seemingly plausible and beguiling, lacks enough evidence and therefore deserves measured scepticism.
Firstly more information is required to determine whether the success of a comprehensive urban renewal program is still applicable. Maybe the economy of Transopolis has significantly deteriorated. As investment has fled and labor forces moved out, building more factories seems unlikely to reduce unemployment and increase revenues. Besides, reshaping the residential area for industrial purposes was merely part of that renewal plan that induced urban rejuvenation, which may include other important reforms of tax, pension and law enforcement, which might have played a greater part in bettering the city welfare. If there’s no valid clarification that construction in this aforementioned area is a conducive incentive by itself, it’s fairly logical to claim that it’s reforms of the whole city that contribute to reported decrease of crimes. In this sense, the inference drawn from the recommendation doesn’t hold water.
Moreover, the area’s resemblance to precedent remains obscure, as the recommendation omits explanations of its comparative significance. If the area, located on the opposite side of the city, is not easily accessible and free from dire issues like crime and contamination, we don’t see a must to implement such radical measures. Moreover, the plan doesn’t present thorough consideration of the implication and potential problems of the transformation plan on other urban areas. If industrial sites become ill-funded because of overspending on this particular declining area, serious problems such as inability to maintain facilities in mitigating pollution would arise.
Besides, the recommendation puts forward an unwarranted expectation that unoccupied housing in nearby neighbourhoods could become housing for the homeless. The houses and apartments are probably private properties, and to transform them into houses for those underprivileged people may undergo an arduous journey without any fruitful outcome, since tramps may not appreciate housing effort in the end. To purchase the land, relocate previous inhabitants and oversee reconstruction is undeniably exacting and unpromising, which leaves crestfallen even the most strong-minded Samaritans.
In addition, discussion of the feasibility of more solutions is neglected. Perhaps, with a little proper management, existing infrastructure could provide sufficient shelter for the homeless. Assuming numerous factories situated in this city, pulling down unpopulated buildings and creating parks would be appealing to nature lovers. What’s more, lack of representation of public opinion downplays the ambitious proposal, as there’s no transparent dialogue and objective survey mentioned between the authorities and local citizens.
To sum up, the recommendation is unconvincing in presenting a cost-benefit analysis in a holistic manner and further evidence is needed to decide on concrete courses of action.
March 2, 2022 at 3:26 pmSplit or simplify lengthy sentences suggested on screenshot reviews.
March 6, 2022 at 5:35 amFor the lasting prosperity of Transopolis, a recommendation on the city’s worsening neighbourhood propose it to be rebuilt into an industrial hub, and unoccupied dwellings nearby can be turned into residences for the homeless. This proposal, seemingly plausible and beguiling, is deeply flawed for lack of crucial evidence.
Firstly more information is required to determine whether the success of a comprehensive urban renewal program is still applicable. Maybe the economy of Transopolis has significantly deteriorated. As investment has fled and labor forces moved out, building more factories seems unlikely to reduce unemployment and increase revenues. Besides, the role of reshaping the residential area for industrial purposes is still unclear, as it was merely part of that renewal plan that induced urban rejuvenation. One might well assume that favorable tax policies led to revenue increase, or inteilligent surveillance contributed to decrease of reported crimes more effectively. Without valid clarification to eliminate these suspicions, it’s fairly logical to gainsay reconstruction as a lucartive incentive. In this sense, the inference drawn from the recommendation doesn’t hold water.
Moreover, the area’s resemblance to precedent remains obscure, as the recommendation omits explanations of its comparative significance. If the area, located on the opposite side of the city, is not easily accessible and free from dire issues like crime and contamination, its problems would be unworthy of attention. Moreover, the plan doesn’t present thorough consideration of the implication and potential problems of the transformation plan on other urban areas. Due to overspending on this particular declining area, serious problems such as failure to maintain facilities in mitigating pollution would arise.
Besides, the recommendation puts forward an unwarranted expectation that unoccupied housing in nearby neighbourhoods could become housing for the homeless. The apartments are probably private properties, and transforming them into houses for underprivileged people may undergo an arduous journey without any fruitful outcome, since tramps may not appreciate housing effort in the end. Even the most strong-minded Samaritans would feel discouraged to oversee this unpromising and exacting process.
In addition, the whole proposal neglects discussion for the feasibility of more solutions. Perhaps, with subtle management, existing infrastructure could provide sufficient shelter for the homeless. , Assuming numerous factories situated in this city, pulling down deserted buildings and creating parks, instead of more new ones, would be more appealing to nature lovers. What’s more, lack of representation of public opinion downplays the ambitious proposal, as there’s no transparent dialogue and objective survey mentioned between the authorities and local citizens.
To sum up, the recommendation is unconvincing in presenting a cost-benefit analysis in a holistic manner and further evidence is needed to decide on concrete courses of action.
March 6, 2022 at 5:30 pmFor the lasting prosperity of Transopolis, (a recommendation on the city’s worsening neighbourhood propose it to be rebuilt)[ clumsy writing/rephrase it ] into an industrial hub,( and unoccupied dwellings nearby can be turned)[unparalleled ] into residences[ word form error ] for the homeless. This proposal, seemingly plausible and( beguiling)[ wrong word chosen ] , is deeply flawed for lack of crucial evidence.
Firstly[ punctuation error ] more information is required to determine (whether the success of a comprehensive urban renewal program is still applicable)[ unclear ] . Maybe the economy of Transopolis has significantly deteriorated. As investment has fled and labor forces moved out, building more factories seems unlikely to reduce unemployment and increase revenues. Besides, the role of reshaping the residential area for industrial purposes is still unclear, as it was merely part of that renewal plan that induced urban rejuvenation. One might well assume that favorable tax policies led to revenue increase, or inteilligent surveillance contributed to decrease of reported crimes more effectively. Without valid clarification to eliminate these suspicions, it’s fairly logical to gainsay reconstruction as a lucartive incentive. In this sense, the inference drawn from the recommendation doesn’t hold water.
Moreover, the area’s resemblance to precedent remains obscure, as the recommendation omits explanations of its comparative significance. If the area, located on the opposite side of the city, is not easily accessible and free from dire issues like crime and contamination, its problems would be unworthy of attention. Moreover, the plan doesn’t present thorough consideration of the implication and potential problems of the transformation plan on other urban areas. Due to overspending on this particular declining area, serious problems such as failure to maintain facilities in mitigating pollution would arise.
Besides, the recommendation puts forward an unwarranted expectation that unoccupied housing in nearby neighbourhoods could become housing for the homeless. The apartments are probably private properties, and transforming them into houses for underprivileged people may undergo an arduous journey without any fruitful outcome, since tramps may not appreciate housing effort in the end. Even the most strong-minded Samaritans would feel discouraged to oversee this unpromising and exacting process.
In addition, the whole proposal neglects discussion for the feasibility of more solutions. Perhaps, with subtle management, existing infrastructure could provide sufficient shelter for the homeless. , Assuming numerous factories situated in this city, pulling down deserted buildings and creating parks, instead of more new ones, would be more appealing to nature lovers. What’s more, lack of representation of public opinion downplays the ambitious proposal, as there’s no transparent dialogue and objective survey mentioned between the authorities and local citizens.
To sum up, the recommendation is unconvincing in presenting a cost-benefit analysis in a holistic manner and further evidence is needed to decide on concrete courses of action.
March 6, 2022 at 5:36 pmPartial revision [ All sentences are problematic and hard to read.]
March 11, 2022 at 4:25 pmFor the lasting prosperity of Transopolis, this author proposes a worsening neighbourhood to be rebuilt into an industrial hub, while residents there are relocated in unoccupied dwellings nearby. While one may sympathize with eagerness for drastic renovations, the recommendation is deeply flawed for lack of crucial evidence.
The proposal of factory construction sounds plausible, citing the success of a similar renewal program ten years ago. But it is questionable whether it’s still applicable today. We do not know current trends of the economy. Suppose it has significantly deteriorated, causing investment to flee and labor forces to move out, building more factories seems unlikely to increase revenues. Besides, regarding the policy of reshaping the residential area for industrial purposes, how does it function in that comprehensive renewal plan? Is it important or doesn’t matter at all? Are there other factors that actually take greater credit for city’s rejuvenation? One might well assume that favorable tax policies led to revenue increase, or inteilligent surveillance contributed to decrease of reported crimes more effectively. Without rigorous review of the city’s development, it’s fairly logical to reject the plan’s potential as a lucartive incentive. In this sense, the inference drawn from the recommendation doesn’t hold water.
Moreover, the author implies on the area’s resemblance to precedent, while its status and comparative significance remains obscure. If the area, located on the opposite side of the city, is not easily accessible and thus impacts on the vicinity very little, its problems are almost the last to be tackled. Moreover, the plan doesn’t present thorough consideration of the plan’s implications on other urban areas. As we can’t estimate the situation of municipal funding, one could speculate input on this particular area drains funding of basic services. In a word, the author needs to reconsider the priorities of the whole city before putting forward resolutions.
Besides, the recommendation puts forward an unwarranted expectation that unoccupied housing could swiftly become housing for relocation. How will demolition of apartments succeed? Remaining locals there may be reluctant to be relocated, as is the case of numerous urban reconstruction projects. Also, how would houses nearby, probably private properties, be transformed into condos for newcomers? In what way shall owners and tenants be reimbursed? How should the government gather universal consent to undergo this ardous process? We should look into statutory requirements and determine administerial burden. We shall research on local population and figure out motives for living in such a declining environment as well. They might seek lower rent and shorter commuting distance, listening to their misgivings would ensure smooth and satisfactory progress. If inhabitants in the region are willing to move, we might agree that such relocation is possible.
In addition, the whole proposal neglects discussion for the feasibility of other solutions. Assuming numerous factories situated in this city, pulling down deserted buildings and creating parks, instead of more new ones, would be more appealing to nature lovers. What’s more, lack of representation of public opinion downplays the ambitious proposal, as there’s no transparent dialogue and objective survey mentioned between the authorities and citizens. If it attains general supporting consenus, its arguements would be more compelling.
To sum up, the recommendation is unconvincing in presenting a cost-benefit analysis in a holistic manner and further evidence is needed to decide on concrete courses of action.
March 13, 2022 at 3:44 amFor the lasting prosperity of Transopolis, this author proposes a worsening neighbourhood to be rebuilt into an industrial hub, while residents there are relocated in unoccupied dwellings nearby. While one may sympathize with eagerness for drastic renovations, the recommendation is deeply flawed for lack of crucial evidence.
The proposal of factory construction sounds plausible, citing the success of a similar renewal program ten years ago. But it is questionable whether it’s still applicable today. We do not know current trends of the economy. Suppose it has significantly deteriorated, causing investment to flee and labor forces to move out, building more factories seems unlikely to increase revenues. Besides, regarding the policy of reshaping the residential area for industrial purposes, how does it function in that comprehensive renewal plan? Is it important or doesn’t matter at all? Are there other factors that actually take greater credit for city’s rejuvenation? One might well assume that favorable tax policies led to revenue increase, or inteilligent surveillance contributed to decrease of reported crimes more effectively. Without rigorous review of the city’s development, it’s fairly logical to reject the plan’s potential as a lucartive incentive. In this sense, the inference drawn from the recommendation doesn’t hold water.
Moreover, the author implies on the area’s resemblance to precedent, while its status and comparative significance remains obscure. If the area, located on the opposite side of the city, is not easily accessible and thus impacts on the vicinity very little, its problems are almost the last to be tackled. Moreover, the plan doesn’t present thorough consideration of the plan’s implications on other urban areas. As we can’t estimate the situation of municipal funding, one could speculate input on this particular area drains funding of basic services. In a word, the author needs to reconsider the priorities of the whole city before putting forward resolutions.
Besides, the recommendation puts forward an unwarranted expectation that unoccupied housing could swiftly become housing for relocation. How will demolition of apartments succeed? Remaining locals there may be reluctant to be relocated, as is the case of numerous urban reconstruction projects. Also, how would houses nearby, probably private properties, be transformed into condos for newcomers? In what way shall owners and tenants be reimbursed? How should the government gather universal consent to undergo this ardous process? We should look into statutory requirements and determine administerial burden. We shall research on local population and figure out motives for living in such a declining environment as well. They might seek lower rent and shorter commuting distance, listening to their misgivings would ensure smooth and satisfactory progress. If inhabitants in the region are willing to move, we might agree that such relocation is possible.
In addition, the whole proposal neglects discussion for the feasibility of other solutions. Assuming numerous factories situated in this city, pulling down deserted buildings and creating parks, instead of more new ones, would be more appealing to nature lovers. What’s more, lack of representation of public opinion downplays the ambitious proposal, as there’s no transparent dialogue and objective survey mentioned between the authorities and citizens. If it attains general supporting consenus, its arguements would be more compelling.
To sum up, the recommendation is unconvincing in presenting a cost-benefit analysis in a holistic manner and further evidence is needed to decide on concrete courses of action.
March 13, 2022 at 3:50 amFix issues indicated on screenshot reviews.
