Hi,

Thank you very much for any input that can be provided!

This is the essay question:
"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."

This is my prep work:
Evidence:
"¢ Increase in building permits = coming improvements to economy
"¢ Numbers of permits rises for a few months = unemployment does down and economic production increases
Conclusion:
"¢ End economic downturn by issuing more permits through relaxed regulations

This is my essay:
In this research paper, the author has falsely concluded that an increase in the number of building permits causes a local economy to pick up from a downturn. In drawing this conclusion, the author fails to take into account additional variables influencing a local economy and has overly generalized an isolated incidence.

First, the author has mistaken a positive correlation between two variables for a cause and effect relationship. He argues that an increase the number of building permits issued causes the local economy to improve. However, this improvement could be caused by an additional variable that is affecting both the number of building permits and the local economy. For example, it is possible that the increase in building permits is caused by an influx in the local population. It would follow that an increase in the number of new families would cause a higher demand in the housing market. These new families would bring in new skills and investments to the region, which in turn, would cause unemployment to drop and economic activity to increase. Since the author does not indicate that other variables may be at play, it is impossible to determine that it is in fact the increase in building permits that causes the local economy to improve.

Second, the author has used a phenomenon occurring in a particular region to form a generalized conclusion that applies to all regions. He states that this relationship is present in a particular region, but then concludes that it is well-established without providing additional evidence to support this claim. In fact, without additional evidence from other regions on the relationship between the building permits and the local economy, it is impossible to provide a generalized recommendation to other local governments.

Finally, the author could improve his argument by providing statistical evidence on this phenomenon occurring in other locations. In addition, he could further strengthen his argument by investigating the possibility of other variable's effect on the local economy. However, as it stands, the author's argument is flawed for the reasons stated above.

V.