Argument77 3.17

longxuUID: 2290268

TOPIC:ARGUMENT77 - The cities of East Sacunda and West Sacundaare in an earthquake-prone area. Since 1985 both cities have had stringentbuilding codes requiring all new buildings to have specific features designedto prevent damage in an earthquake. Buildings built before 1985 are exempt fromthe codes, but many building owners have modified their buildings to make themconform to the 1985 codes. Last year a major earthquake hit the area, and manypeople lost their homes. The number of people who were left homeless was muchhigher in East Sacunda than in West Sacunda, however, so we can conclude thatbuilding owners in East Sacunda were lesslikely to modify their buildings so as to bring them up to the 1985 codestandards.
WORDS:490          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-3-17

The arguer claims that the building ownersin East Sacunda(ES) were less likely than the Wesst Sacunda(WS) to modify theirbuildings so as bring them up to the 1985 code standards. To justify theconclusion, the arguer presents some evidence about the number of people wholeft homeless was much higher in ES than in WS. However, the assumptions aboutthe earthquake in last year and the number of people who were homeless aredubious on several grounds, rendering the argument wholly unpersuasive as itstands.

First of all, the arguer unfairly assumesthat the seriousness of the earthquake in both ES and WS is the same. It isentirely possible that the earthquake in ES is more serious than WS. Thus, theconsequences in ES and WS are, of course, not the same, which is not relevantto the buildings codes in ES. Unless the arguer cannot demonstrate enoughinformation about the seriousness of the earthquake in last year in both ES andWS, we cannot accept the assumption that the buildings which are not brought upto the 1985 code standards are the major reason.

Next point, the arguer fails to take intoaccount the possibilities about the stringent building codes in ES and WS.Perhaps, the building code in ES is strict for most of the areas in thecountry, but the building code in WS is still much more stringent than ES. Eventhough the owners in ES had brought the old building up to the code standardbefore the earthquake, the seriousness of the earthquake can produce far worseresults in ES. If the arguer cannot rule out the possibility about thedifference of code standards between ES and WS, it is not reasonable to assumethat the owners in ES failed to modify the old buildings.

Last but not least, the assumptions that the number of people who lefthomeless in ES is more than WS is the strong evidence to draw the conclusion seemslogical but still cannot be interpreted. It is likely that the whole number ofcitizens in ES is far more than the number of WS, and the rate of people wholeft homeless is lower than WS. It is also likely that the majority of thepeople who left homeless in ES did not lived in the buildings which were built(老大，竟然写成builded了)before 1985. Consequently, the assumption is unconvincing, lacking the clear information about the people who left homeless in ESand WS.

To sum up, the argument is indeed logicallyunsound with the existing evidence and flawed assumptions about the code standards and the number of homeless people. Beforeany final conclusion, the arguer should supply more evidence about the contentsof the code standards and the seriousness of the earthquake in ES and WS. Tobolster it, the arguer should also present more substantial evidence about thepeople who left homeless in the earthquake last year.