Franklin Airport

[manasi4gre]

The following proposal was raised at a meeting of the FranklinCity Council.


“Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, is notorious for flight delays. The airport management wants to build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. The bay coalition organization objects that filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. But the airport says that if it is permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 100 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have been previously been damaged by industrialization. This plan should be adopted, for it is necessary to reduce the flight delays, and the wetland restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay’s environment will be actually helped rather than hurt.”




The proposal in contention concludes with the efficacy of the plan ofFranklin Airport 's airport management to build new runways as a solution for reduction of inordinate flight delays. He further asserts that the wetland restoration part of the plan to compensate for any environmental changes would actually prove beneficial rather than detrimental, as feared by the Bay Coalition organization. Analyzing the argument closely reveals a number of loop holes in its specious reasoning.



Firstly, the report relies on the unjustified assumption that the FranklinAirport is notoriously known for the flight delays and provides no evidence that this assumption is based on narrow reasoning or a broad generalization. The actual reasons for flight delays are unspoken of. It is entirely possible that improper time management, scheduling of flights, lack of adequate staff and bad weather conditions are the real reasons for the flight delays. Further more, the argument offers no perspective as to how the building of new runways would aid in reduction in the flight delays of the airport.



Even if runways need to be constructed, it is unwarranted that it would require to fill up entirely 900 acres of land of the bay. The exact number of runways required to be built and how much land each would take up is not considered at all. Again, how the runways project could prove harmful to the environment is unspoken of. Only a detailed study of the consequences of the project could provide a concrete conclusion on this perspective.


Moreover, the report proposes to fund the restoration of a 100 acre industrial wasteland to make up for any environmental changes the plan would bring about. Funding is only one aspect for it. The argument fails to consider the feasibility of the restoration. The likelihood that this may further pollute the environment by releasing poisonous toxic effluents is not considered at all. Further more, how this funding plan would compensate for the shift in ecology especially as a habitat for wildlife or stabilizing tidal patterns in the bay. It is hence evident that the conclusion that funding for wetland- restoration plan would help the environment rather than harm it, is entirely unwarranted and groundless.



In sum, the argument can be bolstered only by citing clearly the reasons of late flight schedules, considering the soundness of runways as the only possible solution and explicitly justifying the feasibility of the wetland restoration as an effective compensatory measure for which funding has been proposed.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a rough draft of the argument. All views, critiques and suggestions are warmly welcome. Would be pleased to hear from you all.

[manwiththemission2005]

An excellent argument indeed Manasi.
One suggestion :

The 3rd and 5th paras need to be made bigger. 3 line paras .... Hmm.. You may get away with it but considering the content you have put in, you could make it bigger.

1. How severe is the damage by industrialization is not known.
2. Depending on the location of the bay, we can construct new runways. If the location is near a nuclear power plant, is it possible to construct runways there?

These are some of the extra points I thought of so that you can add them in.

Anyways, great work manasi..
Grammar : Awesome
Organization : Great
Content : Enough for atleast a 5.5

[manasi4gre]

Thanks a lot, MWM for the critique as well as appreciation.

I had initially hoped to expand the middle paras but time constraint didn't actually allow me to. Incorporating the point about the extent of industrial damage and nuclear wastes that you suggested, definitely strengthens the argument's fallacy .

Thank you once again!