Fridays

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

The author of this memo claims that city council’s decision is unsubstantiated/not substantial. He asserts that removing four massive residential block would not help to bring up the soul of city. To support this assertion he pointed out some solutions which, on in his opinion, will help residents to be more active in such areas. On the basis of this evidence the author infers that having open space is more logical and economical. However, this argument rests on a series of unsubstantial assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands. To begin with, the memo contains no statistics and numbers to support this assumption. The author did not cite any reliable survey which can support his solutions. He did not ask any wellknown residents in the area to find out the needs of individuals there. Lacking in such information, it is entirely possible that the abandoned accommodation has other reasons in their background. Perhaps the drug dealers fill the entire block and people have decided to move out. In that matter, wiping them out will bring safety back to area and the houses will be ready to live in sooner. On the other hand, the author fails to consider possible differences between a beautiful city and livable one, that which might help bring about some different alternatives for this situation. Gardens and urban farms are long term projects, they cannot be achieved in short time. Considering that shows his offer is limited and lends little credible support to his claim. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for unfinished constructions or new places for putting garbage, or new restricted restrictive laws to confine the unlawful activities, the plan cannot convince me on the basis of open space it can lead to a beautiful and safe place to raise a child. Since the memo fails to account for this alternative explanation, the article’s author cannot make any sound recommendations about the solutions of abandoned residential areas. In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide clear evidence that the new gardens and public places can bring life to city. To persuade me, I would like to know more statistical factors and charts to compare both proposals. It would also be needed necessary to regardconcern the duration of either scenario of changing the places. It helps better to make a sound decision. Sound mind in a sound body