The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
“This city should be able to improve existing services and provide new ones without periodically raising the taxes of the residents. Instead, the city should require that the costs of services be paid for by developers who seek approval for their large new building projects. After all, these projects can be highly profitable to the developers, but they can also raise a city’s expenses and increase the demand for its services.”
The author concludes that the city should mandate developers who desire to kick off large new building projects in the city to be responsible for the cost of city services. To substantiate the conclusion, the author elucidates that this method could lessen taxes burden of residents, even though it may increase city’s expenses, as well as the demand for the city services because the project developers are often lucrative. This argument, however, fails to be persuasive for several reasons.
Most conspicuously, this argument is based on the flawed assumption that all the gigantic new building projects are certainly profitable. Nevertheless, this assumption is not necessarily valid. Not are all the projects successful from the investment in the city. Some of them may bankrupt. Therefore, they cannot pay large amount of money to improve the city’s services. The city yet has to turn back to collect taxes from the residents. If this is the case, then the expectation of improved city’s services supported by the large projects is entirely unfounded.
Also, even if the large new building projects achieve in their projects, this fact alone is insufficient to support the claim that the money derived from them is high enough to cover all the expenses of city’s services. Again, the city inevitably has to turn back to seek for the residents’ helps. It would be very helpful to have some idea about types of city’s services which need to improve, total costs of the services enhancement. Thus, the city can determine about tax regulation for the new building projects, and efficiently balance between the income and the payment for the city’s services.
Finally, the author fails to consider whether the businesses who develop the large projects in the city agree with such tax regulations. If not so, on the other hand, they would discontinue investing in the city. Obviously, this may lead to city’s major crisis. To illustrate, because of the city’s high tax requirement on the large new building industries, many businesses move out. Consequently, many residents are unemployed, and the city would suffer even lower income, and experience critical economic issues. In fact, the city should dissect all the influential factors carefully before making any decisions.
In summary, this argument is unwarranted. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to provide additional information that according to the city’s records, all the previous large projects in the city has truly earned high profits. Moreover, those profits are sufficient to support the costs of city’s services. The detailed information about the expenses of each city’s service should also be given. Most importantly, the author has to guarantee that when this method comes into practice, businesses still continue to invest their projects in the city. Without such evidences mentioned above, this argument remains logically unconvincing and fails to impress the readers.
“This city should be able to improve existing services and provide new ones without periodically raising the taxes of the residents. Instead, the city should require that the costs of services be paid for by developers who seek approval for their large new building projects. After all, these projects can be highly profitable to the developers, but they can also raise a city’s expenses and increase the demand for its services.”
The author concludes that the city should mandate developers who desire to kick off large new building projects in the city to be responsible for the cost of city services. To substantiate the conclusion, the author elucidates that this method could lessen taxes burden of residents, even though it may increase city’s expenses, as well as the demand for the city services because the project developers are often lucrative. This argument, however, fails to be persuasive for several reasons.
Most conspicuously, this argument is based on the flawed assumption that all the gigantic new building projects are certainly profitable. Nevertheless, this assumption is not necessarily valid. Not are all the projects successful from the investment in the city. Some of them may bankrupt. Therefore, they cannot pay large amount of money to improve the city’s services. The city yet has to turn back to collect taxes from the residents. If this is the case, then the expectation of improved city’s services supported by the large projects is entirely unfounded.
Also, even if the large new building projects achieve in their projects, this fact alone is insufficient to support the claim that the money derived from them is high enough to cover all the expenses of city’s services. Again, the city inevitably has to turn back to seek for the residents’ helps. It would be very helpful to have some idea about types of city’s services which need to improve, total costs of the services enhancement. Thus, the city can determine about tax regulation for the new building projects, and efficiently balance between the income and the payment for the city’s services.
Finally, the author fails to consider whether the businesses who develop the large projects in the city agree with such tax regulations. If not so, on the other hand, they would discontinue investing in the city. Obviously, this may lead to city’s major crisis. To illustrate, because of the city’s high tax requirement on the large new building industries, many businesses move out. Consequently, many residents are unemployed, and the city would suffer even lower income, and experience critical economic issues. In fact, the city should dissect all the influential factors carefully before making any decisions.
In summary, this argument is unwarranted. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to provide additional information that according to the city’s records, all the previous large projects in the city has truly earned high profits. Moreover, those profits are sufficient to support the costs of city’s services. The detailed information about the expenses of each city’s service should also be given. Most importantly, the author has to guarantee that when this method comes into practice, businesses still continue to invest their projects in the city. Without such evidences mentioned above, this argument remains logically unconvincing and fails to impress the readers.
