"The safety codes governing the construction of public buildings are becoming far too strict. The surest way for architects and builders to prove that they have met the minimum requirements established by these codes is to construct buildings by using the same materials and methods that are currently allowed. But doing so means that there will be very little significant technological innovation within the industry, and hence little evolution of architectural styles and design-merely because of the strictness of these safety codes"




In the above argument the author claims that the strictness of the safety codes for the construction of public buliding will lead to little evolution of architectural styles and design. The author supports this statement by saying that in order to meet minimum requirements established by these codes architecture and builders will use same material and methods, which will bring very little technological innovation within the industry. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that author offers we cannot accept his argument as valid.

The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. First the author considers the only way to meet the requirements established by these codes is to use same material and methods for construction. This may be one of the requirements but not the only one. Second the author mentions that the safety codes are too strict , but what if there is a viable reason for that? What if it is an earthquake prone area and it is important for the builders and architects to follow these codes for the safety of people. The author's premises, the basis of his argument lack any legitimate evidentary support and render his argument invalid.

In addition , the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that using same material and methods leads to little technological innovation and thus little evolution of architectural style. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiate in any way. The author ignores the fact that with time new techniques are introduced that helps to bring a big change in the architectural style using same material and methods. The author weakens his argument by making unsubstantiated assumptions and failing to explicate what he assumes.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed and is therefore unconvincing.It could be strengthened if author clearly mentions all the relevant facts such as the reason to introduce these safety codes. Author can also provide information about some of the requirement that the architecture and builders need to meet. If author truly hopes to change his reader's mind on the issue, he would have to restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate the argument and provide evidentary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely to convince few people.