The following appeared in a research paper written for an introductory economics course:
“For the past century, an increase in the number of residential building permits issued per month in a particular region has been a reliable indicator of coming improvements to that region’s economy. If the monthly number of residential building permits issued rises consistently for a few months, the local unemployment rate almost always falls and economic production increases. This well-established connection reveals an effective method by which a regional government can end a local economic downturn: relax regulations governing all construction so that many more building permits can be issued.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . .etc.

The research paper's conclusion that a region's economic turndown can mitigated by laxing regulations on constructions is unconvincing. The evidence provided in the argument may be true but not sufficient enough to come to such a strong conclusion. This argument is seriously flawed because of the following reasons.

The primary flaw for this argument is the causal flaw. A reduction in the local unemployment rate and rise in the economic prodction are considered the only factors governing the mitigation of a local economic turndown. Many other factors such inflation rate, availability of resources can have significant contribution in an economic turndown. This flaw could have been removed if any evidence were provided mentioning the impact of reduction in unemployment rate in putting an end to local economic turndown. Also additional evidence needs to be provided to show that the other factors have negligible influence in changing a local economic status.

The next flaw in the argument is the assumption that an increase in the residential building permits for a few months would result in a drop in unemployment rates. The evidence considers only a narrow bandwidth of a few months and this may not be true to come to such a strong conclusion. Also a rise in building permits may not only be the strong reason for a drop in unemployment rates. The argument fails to show that converse can be true. A proper statistical data showing a relation between increase in building permits and unemployment rates would have nullified the flaw.

To conclude, I think the research paper lacks credibility to convince the readers that the local econominc turndown can be mitigated by a rise in building permits. Proper statistical data showing the relation between rise in buildng permits and a drop in unemployment rate, any evidence showing that other factors have little influence in changing local economic status could have strengthened the argument.