"According to the most recent survey of our readers, nearly 70% of the respondents indicated that they are planning to build or purchase a new home over the next 2 years. These results indicate that the growth in the construction industry is likely to accelerate in the near future. Therefore, this industry continues to offer lucrative opportunities for investment."
The author's conclusion is flawed as the argument proves to lack factual data and proof for most part of it. For instance, the author considers the results of a magazine/newspaper to account for the overall population. Also there is no evidence that construction industry is better than many other industries. Further the author has not considered the construction costs, which could increse drastically over the period of two years.
Firstly, the author has considered the survey of a magazine/newspaper as the voice of a whole population. A single newspaper/magazine may not account for whole of the population in a state/country. Unless there is evidence that the newspaper is circulated across regions and societies, the survey taken by the magazine/newspaper may not be considered credible. Therefore, the author could have added evidence proving the wide distribution of the magazine/newspaper.
Secondly, the author has not considered any such survey which had happened in the past and the subsequent impact on the construction industry. For example, it is always better to compare a survey which has happened in the past, just like the census works. Had this been presented, it would have been evident for investors to look for investments in construction companies.
Also, the author has not taken into account any other industry, stating why construction industry is better for investments than the other. The investors will always look for comparisions and would like to choose the best among the same. The author could have compared the performance of the construction industry with that of others, just to showcase the conclusion.
Furthermore, the author has also not considered the changes in the cost of construction of a hosue: the material costs and the labor costs. There is every possibility that the construction costs, both materials and labour would increase over a couple of years. It is always a strength to add evidence to convince the readers in favour of our conclusion, by adding such a point.
Finally, from the investors' point-of-view the author has not taken into account any risks involved with the investment: the market down-trend, a possible recession, or any such situation wherein the construction is one among the hardly affected sectors. Conversely, if the author had discussed on the stability of the market and the risk-free factor of the investment in the construction industry,it would have strengthened the argument and the conclusion.
Hence, a better way to present this argument is to remove all flaws outlined above in order to convince the reader to accept the conclusion made by the author.
The author's conclusion is flawed as the argument proves to lack factual data and proof for most part of it. For instance, the author considers the results of a magazine/newspaper to account for the overall population. Also there is no evidence that construction industry is better than many other industries. Further the author has not considered the construction costs, which could increse drastically over the period of two years.
Firstly, the author has considered the survey of a magazine/newspaper as the voice of a whole population. A single newspaper/magazine may not account for whole of the population in a state/country. Unless there is evidence that the newspaper is circulated across regions and societies, the survey taken by the magazine/newspaper may not be considered credible. Therefore, the author could have added evidence proving the wide distribution of the magazine/newspaper.
Secondly, the author has not considered any such survey which had happened in the past and the subsequent impact on the construction industry. For example, it is always better to compare a survey which has happened in the past, just like the census works. Had this been presented, it would have been evident for investors to look for investments in construction companies.
Also, the author has not taken into account any other industry, stating why construction industry is better for investments than the other. The investors will always look for comparisions and would like to choose the best among the same. The author could have compared the performance of the construction industry with that of others, just to showcase the conclusion.
Furthermore, the author has also not considered the changes in the cost of construction of a hosue: the material costs and the labor costs. There is every possibility that the construction costs, both materials and labour would increase over a couple of years. It is always a strength to add evidence to convince the readers in favour of our conclusion, by adding such a point.
Finally, from the investors' point-of-view the author has not taken into account any risks involved with the investment: the market down-trend, a possible recession, or any such situation wherein the construction is one among the hardly affected sectors. Conversely, if the author had discussed on the stability of the market and the risk-free factor of the investment in the construction industry,it would have strengthened the argument and the conclusion.
Hence, a better way to present this argument is to remove all flaws outlined above in order to convince the reader to accept the conclusion made by the author.
