The GRE argument task is designed to assess a candidate’s ability of critical reasoning and power of persuasion. The main objective of the GRE argument task is to determine how well a candidate can make a convincing argument in favour of their evaluation of the respective task. This topic is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county. Candidates can practice similar topics in GRE writing practice papers.

Topic:

"The city of Transopolis adapted a significant tract of badly inadequate homes near the motorway for industrial usage ten years ago as part of a broad urban development effort. Several factories were built as a result, crime rates in the area decreased, and property tax income for the city as a whole increased. We should now take similar steps in a declining residential sector on the opposite side of town to further revive the city. Alternative accommodation for persons displaced by this move will be readily available, as various houses and apartments in existing surrounding areas are already uninhabited."

Answer:

The author proposes that, in order to further restore Transopolis, the city takes the same steps that were successful 10 years before. Although the argument appears to be compelling to readers at first glance, a closer examination reveals that it is riddled with faults, casting doubt on the arguer's premise. To bolster this argument, the author points out that ten years ago, the city implemented a similar program to repurpose large substandard housing near freeways for industrial purposes, which resulted in lower crime rates, higher tax revenue, and the use of unoccupied apartments in the surrounding neighborhood for those displaced. While the argument is somewhat appealing, it suffers from three flaws in its reasoning.

To begin with, there is no evidence of what the declining residence area entails, that is, how the region is impacted. There must be some reasons for not growing up in that particular place, whether political, natural, or social. To begin with, ten years is a long time, and things are certain to have altered in that time. It's possible that the city required an industrial sector 10 years ago, and the efforts taken to adapt to industrial use were useful at the time. A similar strategy may not work for Transopolis at this time, as the city's industrial need may be nearly saturated. The city is also likely to be the first to carry out such relocations for 10 years, and that industrialists selected Transopolis at the time owing to a lack of comparable prospects. Since then, most adjacent cities have adopted similar policies and set similar objectives. Transopolis will not be the only option for aspiring businesses due to the number of such communities in the area.

Also, check:

Secondly, sufficient evidence has not been shown to show the reasons for factors such as the construction of multiple factories, the reduction in crime rates, and the growth in property tax with the ten-year-old adaption plan. It's likely that the city took a few more steps in addition to adjusting poor housing areas. For example, raising awareness among people about how the city provides them with a living and that raising taxes will actually benefit them in many ways, or allocating more police officers. The strategy to take deteriorating residential areas may not be beneficial to the city unless all of the actions are adopted at the same time.

Moreover, industrial development often coincides with the development of surrounding residential neighborhoods. Home, land, education, culture, and many other things should all be included in a well-planned industrial belt, which is highly recommended. For all of this to be taken care of, a well-planned budget is required. If residents demand an excessive amount of money in order to relocate, the entire concept may fall apart and become unrealistic to accomplish. Residents may want to check on fundamental civic facilities in the city, such as energy and water availability, drainage, security, and communication alternatives. They are likely to reject the offer unless they are given all of these possibilities.

Finally, the recommendations appear unconvincing since they do not present a compelling case that the strategy can be executed and will benefit the community. Additional information such as whether the same environment exists today that was beneficial ten years ago, or whether this adaptation is the only reason why the urban renewal program worked, or whether residents have agreed to relocate to other parts of the city could have substantiated the arguments made. In absence of all this information, the renewal strategy remains unconvincing and cannot be implemented at the present state.