"The average price of an acre of land in the United States is now 50 times what it was in 1970, and nearly 200 times what it was in 1920. The nation's population is projected to keep increasing, even as the amount of land remains constant. Therefore, people who are approaching retirement should invest heavily in real estate in order to ensure their financial security."
The argument claims that the average price of land in the US has been increasing. The avg price per acre of land is 50 times that in 1970, and 200 times that in 1920. Also, the author states that even though the population is projected to increase, the amount of land remains constant. Stated in this way, the argument fails to consider certain factors, which could weaken the conclusion. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the author readily assumes that people who are approaching retirement should readily invest in real estate to protect their financial interests. Moreover, the argument also mentions that the amount of land will remain constant. Given that, we can find a flaw in the reasoning provided. If the amount of land is constant, there might be a possibility that due to high interest of people to invest in real estate and lesser land available, the prices of land may fall. Hence, there will be no point in investing in such properties. Thre might also be a case that the land prices go so high that people would not be able to afford them. Hence, the argument could have been clearer if it explicitly stated the reason for the investment.
Second, the argument also relies on the idea that people who are approaching their old age, will be completely financially secured only by investing in real estate. There might be a possibility that people will still be not secured financially. Investing in real estate cannot be the sole way for financial freedom. If the argument had provided some evidence that it the investment will eliminate all financial burdens of the people, then, the argument would have been a lot more convincing. The passage also does not talk about the young people, as to how will they protect their financial security.
Finally, the argument can be justified if the author mentions clear reasons for the disputed reasoning. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, if the author truly hopes to change the reader's mind on the issue he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The argument claims that the average price of land in the US has been increasing. The avg price per acre of land is 50 times that in 1970, and 200 times that in 1920. Also, the author states that even though the population is projected to increase, the amount of land remains constant. Stated in this way, the argument fails to consider certain factors, which could weaken the conclusion. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the author readily assumes that people who are approaching retirement should readily invest in real estate to protect their financial interests. Moreover, the argument also mentions that the amount of land will remain constant. Given that, we can find a flaw in the reasoning provided. If the amount of land is constant, there might be a possibility that due to high interest of people to invest in real estate and lesser land available, the prices of land may fall. Hence, there will be no point in investing in such properties. Thre might also be a case that the land prices go so high that people would not be able to afford them. Hence, the argument could have been clearer if it explicitly stated the reason for the investment.
Second, the argument also relies on the idea that people who are approaching their old age, will be completely financially secured only by investing in real estate. There might be a possibility that people will still be not secured financially. Investing in real estate cannot be the sole way for financial freedom. If the argument had provided some evidence that it the investment will eliminate all financial burdens of the people, then, the argument would have been a lot more convincing. The passage also does not talk about the young people, as to how will they protect their financial security.
Finally, the argument can be justified if the author mentions clear reasons for the disputed reasoning. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, if the author truly hopes to change the reader's mind on the issue he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
